Satan's Perfection?

[Vudu_Prince]

Okay first... what you are doing above is argument by analogy - not a strawman. You can turn an argument by analogy into a strawman, but one is not inherently the other

Every strawman is at its foundation an analogy but every analogy isn't a strawman. For an analogy not to be a strawman then your point of inference has to be within the same construct as your target. Math isn't within the same construct of my target Religion. If I then attempt to equate my conclusion from my math analogy as inference to my target religion.. that is a strawman brother. Whether I use it to prove or disprove a premise at my target. Now lets not turn this into a back forth. lol It is of little consequence.

Second... my question was not only simple it was a legitimate question. You can't argue that the events in the Bible didn't happen... and then argue this is the way they happened. They either happened or they didn't - the end. To use your math analogy you cannot argue

2 + 2 = 5

or

2 + 2 =/= 5

if you assert that neither 2 nor 5 exist and that addition has never happened.

The only way for you to enter the debate is to speak purely hypothetical. If you can only speak in pure hypotheticals - you cannot prove or disprove ANYTHING. All you can do is state a hypothesis... you can't assert ANY truth.

Again how can one state something is false without SHOWING how it is false? If I would've did that you would have said prove it then. The only way to truly prove something is either true or false is to test the subject itself. I can't stand outside the subject and say its false because XYZ. Even if its the truth I have no Proof. Proof lies in testing the actual subject be it religion, math, biology, etc introducing variables and formulating a conclusion based on its results alone.

I did and basically you're kinda upset about it. It's cool because I understand religion is a touchy subject so when the faithful get the truth and become angry it comes with the territory. Furthermore if we are going to use your stance then you have just destroyed yourself as you are blatantly using bias with your faith. This means you can't give an independent opinion. It is something that you covet so you seek to hold on to it....

LOL - too easy. Finally wanna use the text eh? Good let's address this. There is no recordation of when Eve died in Genesis which is why you are now interested in just focusing on her and only Genesis. But arguing by semantics won't help you. You no doubt know that in Genesis it IS explicitily stated that Adam died. Satan said he would not. He didn't have to talk to Adam for it to be a lie. And as ridiculous as it is to assume that she lived forever when she didn't eat from the Tree of life, we don't have to see Eve die to know that the serpent lied because Adam DID die. And ALL of this came from JUST Genesis.

I have used the text the entire time what you mean now? Genesis Chapters 1-3 and almost every verse. I have posted more verses in this thread than anyone else. So what do you mean? The only person you are confusing is yourself team. You initiated the fact that Satan lied to Adam and Eve and you stated that proof he was a lier is in their death. Then you owned yourself when you state twice and I quote

#1 " Adam doesn't even talk to Satan at all - how do you attribute his eating the fruit to Satan to opening his eyes and/or making him think? Adam got the fruit from Eve and he didn't think about anything he simply took it and ate it. For those that doubt this read the text... that is what it says. On what basis are you giving Satan credit for making him think about it? -Damie Reply #62 on Apr 29, 2009, 7:37am »"

#2 "Now I answered your questions - feel free to answer mine. Who talked to Adam? Where is his relative difference? He didn't talk to the serpent. He didn't talk to Eve. He took the fruit and ate. So who did he talk to? Are you going to ignore this blaring contradiction? Running from it will not save you LOL. I'm gonna keep asking until you answer.-Damie « Reply #79 on May 1, 2009, 3:04pm »


So then you state that Adam never spoke to Serpent nor Eve so how can the Serpent be given credit for the person who gave him the stage to think but now you state he didn't have to say anything because Eve eating the Apple and giving it to Adam infers guilt? Bruh you are fooling nobody but yourself... cmon Stay the course of your argument and stop changing up everytime you reach an obstacle. This is something you do often. Furthermore it is of importance that two things happen in Genesis that don't #1 Your God hold on to his promise of Death. Lets see if death as punishment is mentioned for both of them..

Adam's Punishment
Genesis 3:17And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Okay so the God condemns Adam to death cool.

Eve's Punishment
Genesis 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.


Sexist as hayle but ur um No Death mentioned by your God. Check Mate Again.

All I can tell you is that the assumption that every action has as it's motivation "a problem" is logically flawed. I didn't go see Wolverine last weekend because there was "a problem". I didn't remix Charlie Wilson's song on Jamglue because there was "a problem". I didn't join OO because there was "a problem".

Damie you said creation story was about purpose. Lets see a defination for purpose.

"Purpose is the cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal in a given system, whether human or machine. Its most general sense is the anticipated result which guides decision making in choosing appropriate actions within a range of strategies in the process (a conceptual scheme) based on varying degrees of ambiguity about the knowledge that creates the contextualisation for the action. Purpose serves to change the state of conditions in a given environment, usually to one with a perceived better set of conditions or parameters from the previous state. This change is the motivation that serves the locus of control and goal orientation. "


So if creation has no problem then it has purpose so what does it have Damie? A purpose can not exist without it first being a problem. If one is hungry(problem) then one eats (solution) therefore your nourishment has purpose..the solution of your hunger. If you are now equating creation of man and woman to be akin to you not going to see Wolverine for the simple reason you just didn't want to ...then you are stating our existence has no purpose at all. But if you didn't go see Wolverine last weekend because maybe you had other more important plans then you not going now has a purpose. If you remixed Charlie Wilson song on jamglue because you want people to hear your gift for music then brother your actions now have a purpose. If you joined OO because you sought to be around like minded greeks then brother again that is a purpose.... You speak the way you do because you don't realize the shackles around your mind. This is why its easy for me to burn anything you put forth. I can twist and turn you in your own text that you submit to because frankly... I know it better than you.... I am the Satan that the text warns you about.

[DamieQue™]

Every strawman is at its foundation an analogy but every analogy isn't a strawman. For an analogy not to be a strawman then your point of inference has to be within the same construct as your target. Math isn't within the same construct of my target Religion. If I then attempt to equate my conclusion from my math analogy as inference to my target religion.. that is a strawman brother. Whether I use it to prove or disprove a premise at my target. Now lets not turn this into a back forth. lol It is of little consequence.

For anyone else watching - whether an analogy becomes a Strawman is based on how well (or poorly) it models the other person's argument. Why? Because a Strawman is an argument that your opponent didn't actually make, which you refute as though he/she did. It is not based on construct (if that was the case even VP couldn't argue that creation is like problem solving - they are different constructs). It's not about topical construct - it's about proper modeling.

Again how can one state something is false without SHOWING how it is false? If I would've did that you would have said prove it then. The only way to truly prove something is either true or false is to test the subject itself. I can't stand outside the subject and say its false because XYZ. Even if its the truth I have no Proof. Proof lies in testing the actual subject be it religion, math, biology, etc introducing variables and formulating a conclusion based on its results alone.

This is an example of scope shift. The argument wasn't about declaring something false, after showing it was false. The argument is, if NONE of it happened (as you have said several times on this board) you can't come back and then say, "this is the way it happened". Those are 2 separate arguments.

I did and basically you're kinda upset about it. It's cool because I understand religion is a touchy subject so when the faithful get the truth and become angry it comes with the territory. Furthermore if we are going to use your stance then you have just destroyed yourself as you are blatantly using bias with your faith. This means you can't give an independent opinion. It is something that you covet so you seek to hold on to it....

This is an example of an argument refuting itself. First it takes for granted it's main points without so much as remotely building a case for either. Let's ignore that for now. Let's consider the second part - the logic above that says bias and/or faith negates the ability to give an independent opinion. This type of logic is one that assumes that faith and bias are a Christian quality alone. The fact of course is that anyone with a belief system has bias and relies on faith. So if you subscribe to VP's logic - then NO ONE can given an opinion - not even him. Like I said... an argument that refutes itself.

I have used the text the entire time what you mean now? Genesis Chapters 1-3 and almost every verse. I have posted more verses in this thread than anyone else. So what do you mean? The only person you are confusing is yourself team. You initiated the fact that Satan lied to Adam and Eve and you stated that proof he was a lier is in their death. Then you owned yourself when you state twice and I quote

Okay first... the assertions concerning Adam's consciousness, awareness, and thought relies on VP's coding hypothesis. The coding hypothesis is NOT in the text - judge for yourself whether or not he's making his argument from the text the entire time.

Here's a further problem with VP's argument. He hasn't addressed the Adam / Satan communication issue at all - if you recall VP asserted that Adam got relative difference from talking to Satan which resulted in free will. The text doesn't support that and he's been avoiding this point like the plague. But now he's coming back to it because his argument now relies on Eve being alive forever. If you haven't noted for yourself, the book of Genesis (to which VP wants to constrain all debate) does not explicitly say when Eve died. (Notice however when he brought up this point I didn't side step it - I addressed it). It does say when Adam died. All that's left for VP to argue is that somehow Eve lived forever.

Let's read the text. We can establish that God didn't lie by watching Adam alone. No one can argue that God didn't tell Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree (Genesis 2:17). No one can argue that Adam ate from the tree (Genesis 3:6), no one can argue that Adam didn't die (Genesis 5:5). The text says all of these things. You don't have to intrept, add caveats, or substitute hypothesis as facts... the text is plain. So anyone that says God lied is wrong.

#7 Lastly showed the "God" was a lier as Adam died at 930 years but Eve never dies at all the only person whom the Serpent directly spoke to.

Now since Adam didn't talk to the serpent directly we can also refute the claim that the serpent gave Adam free will based on the argument of "relative difference". Note: This is actually inconsequential because freewill is established by the fact that Adam and Eve had the ability to choose. Being presented with a choice would have made no difference if they couldn't have acted on it. The lynch pin to free will is not temptation, it's the ability to act, the ability to choose. All that is left is did Eve live forever and did the serpent lie.

Let's look at the text... what was required for someone to live forever? They had to eat from the Tree of life. Did either one of them eat from that tree? No. How do we know? Genesis 3:21 says that God prevents them from doing so - even VP has acknowledged this. Further proof is that Adam's death is explicitly mentioned (Genesis 5:5) - and he wouldn't have died if he had eaten from the tree of life. He ate the same fruit as Eve (Genesis 3:6), so she couldn't have eaten from the tree of life either.

Now did the serpent lie? VP's contention was, well Damie, if the serpent didn't talk to Adam, then he couldn't have lied to Adam.

Logically stated this is true, however - the contention was that the Serpent lied - not simply that he lied to Adam. The key to understanding here is that the Serpent doesn't have to have lied to Adam to have lied. The conversation that Eve and the serpent have is in the "plural" not the singular. When the serpent first approaches Eve he questions what God says and Eve answers "WE" not "I" - "WE may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden, Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." And there it is Ladies and Gentlemen. The serpent refutes THIS statement - and that statement pertained to Adam and Eve not dying. There is ample evidence already to conclude that Eve didn't live forever (she didn't eat from the tree of life being one, the fact that the other women's death also weren't recorded during that period, see Adah, Zillah, and Naamah) but the truth is we don't need it as evidence... we know she ate the same fruit as Adam, and we know Adam died - which the serpent refuted would happen. Q.E.D. The serpent lied.

So here is what has been established

God told the truth
The serpent lied

Damie you said creation story was about purpose. Lets see a defination for purpose.

No I said the purpose of the created was praise - is that the same as saying the creation story was about purpose? No. In fact I said the creation was more like divine art - not requiring a problem as motivation. Everything made in conclusion from this strawman is off. That said please look at the definition given for purpose.

"Purpose is the cognitive awareness in cause and effect linking for achieving a goal in a given system, whether human or machine. Its most general sense is the anticipated result which guides decision making in choosing appropriate actions within a range of strategies in the process (a conceptual scheme) based on varying degrees of ambiguity about the knowledge that creates the contextualisation for the action. Purpose serves to change the state of conditions in a given environment, usually to one with a perceived better set of conditions or parameters from the previous state. This change is the motivation that serves the locus of control and goal orientation.

Can anyone point in this definition where "a problem" is the impetus for action? It's not just enough to note that the word "problem" occurs no where in the definition... look the whole thing through and see if "a problem" MUST be the horse that drives the cart (and don't spend too much time doing it because it's not. And it's not because I say so - it's because the definition says so).

Now I'm about to turn this around and use VP's debate profile against him. VP you say that every action has at it's core a problem it is solving. You are not in the church and you are not a christian - it is therefore not a problem to you. So what motivates your crusade against Christianity?

[Vudu_Prince]

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X. X= Religion

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y. Y=Math 2+2=5

3.3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed. Shows 2+2 can't= 5 to infer the held premsis of Person A as akin to religion is also false.

I haven't read the rest yet I will later but this is about an example how you become belligerently ignorant to truth. You seem to always have to be right. Even when proof is provided. I will read the rest later but I'm sure you have switched up your stance again. Stop trying to make pointless sub arguments as always to draw away from the topic. As you said before running from it will not save you....

[DamieQue™]

May 6, 2009 14:51:44 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

I haven't read the rest yet I will later but this is about an example how you become belligerently ignorant to truth. You seem to always have to be right. Even when proof is provided. I will read the rest later but I'm sure you have switched up your stance again. Stop trying to make pointless sub arguments as always to draw away from the topic. As you said before running from it will not save you....

Physician heal thyself.

[Vudu_Prince]

For anyone else watching - whether an analogy becomes a Strawman is based on how well (or poorly) it models the other person's argument. Why? Because a Strawman is an argument that your opponent didn't actually make, which you refute as though he/she did. It is not based on construct (if that was the case even VP couldn't argue that creation is like problem solving - they are different constructs). It's not about topical construct - it's about proper modeling.

This doesn't make sense and is of little consequence. I have proved what a strawman is and used it properly. For you to even mention an opponent in relation to a straw man is woefully improper. All the strawman needs is the construct. It can be held by a person or stand alone. I don't need you to argue religion for me to make a strawman against it. You're wrong. Moving on...

This is an example of scope shift. The argument wasn't about declaring something false, after showing it was false. The argument is, if NONE of it happened (as you have said several times on this board) you can't come back and then say, "this is the way it happened". Those are 2 separate arguments.

This is a strawman here. What does this have to do with religion? Oh I get it you are attempting to state my logic isn't of sound judgment.. Gotcha.

This is an example of an argument refuting itself. First it takes for granted it's main points without so much as remotely building a case for either. Let's ignore that for now. Let's consider the second part - the logic above that says bias and/or faith negates the ability to give an independent opinion. This type of logic is one that assumes that faith and bias are a Christian quality alone. The fact of course is that anyone with a belief system has bias and relies on faith. So if you subscribe to VP's logic - then NO ONE can given an opinion - not even him. Like I said... an argument that refutes itself.

Wowsers I saw the future.. lol I thought we were talking about Adam and using the text? smdh

Okay first... the assertions concerning Adam's consciousness, awareness, and thought relies on VP's coding hypothesis. The coding hypothesis is NOT in the text - judge for yourself whether or not he's making his argument from the text the entire time.

Here's a further problem with VP's argument. He hasn't addressed the Adam / Satan communication issue at all - if you recall VP asserted that Adam got relative difference from talking to Satan which resulted in free will. The text doesn't support that and he's been avoiding this point like the plague. But now he's coming back to it because his argument now relies on Eve being alive forever. If you haven't noted for yourself, the book of Genesis (to which VP wants to constrain all debate) does not explicitly say when Eve died. (Notice however when he brought up this point I didn't side step it - I addressed it). It does say when Adam died. All that's left for VP to argue is that somehow Eve lived forever.

So are you looking for the cosign here? Who is your audience? Simply put Damie it is 66 books in the bible and never once does it show Eve dying. I mean your god spake directly to her and he didn't condemn her to death. Period. Get over it.

Let's read the text. We can establish that God didn't lie by watching Adam alone. No one can argue that God didn't tell Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree (Genesis 2:17). No one can argue that Adam ate from the tree (Genesis 3:6), no one can argue that Adam didn't die (Genesis 5:5). The text says all of these things. You don't have to intrept, add caveats, or substitute hypothesis as facts... the text is plain. So anyone that says God lied is wrong.

Now since Adam didn't talk to the serpent directly we can also refute the claim that the serpent gave Adam free will based on the argument of "relative difference". Note: This is actually inconsequential because freewill is established by the fact that Adam and Eve had the ability to choose. Being presented with a choice would have made no difference if they couldn't have acted on it. The lynch pin to free will is not temptation, it's the ability to act, the ability to choose. All that is left is did Eve live forever and did the serpent lie.

Let's look at the text... what was required for someone to live forever? They had to eat from the Tree of life. Did either one of them eat from that tree? No. How do we know? Genesis 3:21 says that God prevents them from doing so - even VP has acknowledged this. Further proof is that Adam's death is explicitly mentioned (Genesis 5:5) - and he wouldn't have died if he had eaten from the tree of life. He ate the same fruit as Eve (Genesis 3:6), so she couldn't have eaten from the tree of life either.

Now did the serpent lie? VP's contention was, well Damie, if the serpent didn't talk to Adam, then he couldn't have lied to Adam.

If a parent provides lessons to their children can they negate their upbringing? Their parent's tutelage? My contention wasn't anything concerning Adam and the Serpent. When I stated that the Serpent gave Man free will you are the one who raise the point of contention that Adam didn't talk to the serpent not me. Maybe I should've been more clear and said Adam and Eve. lol Listen you within this construct can't tell me what thinking is because you're not thinking. You can't explain what consciousness is because you are unconsciousness. I will show you here.

Genesis 3:1Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
So Satan first asks Eve a question.


Genesis 3:2And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3But 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. Eve answers with code cool


Genesis 3: 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5For 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.

So the Serpent gives her a anti-code. A relative difference. Lets see what Eve does next.

Genesis 3:6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Now why didn't she look at the tree like this before? Who gave her that stage to Think. She didn't eat right away she looked at it. Her thought brought her to a problem. The relative difference as akin to what she had been told. The solution was that it was pleasant to the eyes and would be good for food and the PURPOSE was that it was a tree desired to make one wise. So she ate. She gave it to Adam who didn't hear the relative difference staying the unconscious slave he just followed along This isn't theory this is word for word from the text. Lets see if Satan's first statement was a lie to Eve about the opening of the eyes.


Genesis 3: 7And the eyes of them both were OPENED, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Well damn. Check Mate again. We can do this all day.

Logically stated this is true, however - the contention was that the Serpent lied - not simply that he lied to Adam. The key to understanding here is that the Serpent doesn't have to have lied to Adam to have lied. The conversation that Eve and the serpent have is in the "plural" not the singular. When the serpent first approaches Eve he questions what God says and Eve answers "WE" not "I" - "WE may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden, Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." And there it is Ladies and Gentlemen. The serpent refutes THIS statement - and that statement pertained to Adam and Eve not dying. There is ample evidence already to conclude that Eve didn't live forever (she didn't eat from the tree of life being one, the fact that the other women's death also weren't recorded during that period, see Adah, Zillah, and Naamah) but the truth is we don't need it as evidence... we know she ate the same fruit as Adam, and we know Adam died - which the serpent refuted would happen. Q.E.D. The serpent lied.

So here is what has been established

God told the truth
The serpent lied

The Serpent tells Eve her eyes will be Opened.
Gen 3:7And the eyes of them both were Opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Score Serpent 1- "God" 0

The Serpent tells Eve ye will be as Gods to know the knowledge of Good and Evil.
Gen 3:22And 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: Score Serpent 2- "God" -0

The Serpent says Gen 3:4 4And the serpent said unto the WOMAN, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3: 16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Serpent 3- "God" 0

No I said the purpose of the created was praise - is that the same as saying the creation story was about purpose? No. In fact I said the creation was more like divine art - not requiring a problem as motivation. Everything made in conclusion from this strawman is off. That said please look at the definition given for purpose.

Your theory is unsupported. Sorry. Man as per the bible was made to be a worker
Gen 3: 5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was NOT A MAN TO TILL THE GROUND. 6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7And the LORD God FORMED MAN OF THE DUST OF THE GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis Text 1- Damie's theory 0

Can anyone point in this definition where "a problem" is the impetus for action? It's not just enough to note that the word "problem" occurs no where in the definition... look the whole thing through and see if "a problem" MUST be the horse that drives the cart (and don't spend too much time doing it because it's not. And it's not because I say so - it's because the definition says so).

The very first line says it. Purpose is the cognitive awareness in CAUSE and EFFECT linking for achieving a goal in a given system

* Cause - A basis for an action or response; a reason:
* Effect - To bring into existence, To produce as a result.


The keyword here is LINKING the cause and effect the problem and the solution.

Now I'm about to turn this around and use VP's debate profile against him. VP you say that every action has at it's core a problem it is solving. You are not in the church and you are not a christian - it is therefore not a problem to you. So what motivates your crusade against Christianity?

This answer is simple... UPLIFT...... Each one Teach one.

[DamieQue™]

May 7, 2009 9:27:13 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

The very first line says it. Purpose is the cognitive awareness in CAUSE and EFFECT linking for achieving a goal in a given system

* Cause - A basis for an action or response; a reason:
* Effect - To bring into existence, To produce as a result.


The keyword here is LINKING the cause and effect the problem and the solution.

Now I'm about to turn this around and use VP's debate profile against him. VP you say that every action has at it's core a problem it is solving. You are not in the church and you are not a christian - it is therefore not a problem to you. So what motivates your crusade against Christianity?

This answer is simple... UPLIFT...... Each one Teach one.

So first, I'm done arguing the Genesis text. Every incoming criticism has been addressed and debunked, every point articulated has been confirmed, and every outgoing criticism has been substantiated with the opposition's inability to address. The case has been made, and those who read it, know it. And those that will come to read it, will see it. You don't have to say uncle (it wasn't the goal from the start)

In closing
A Problem can be a Cause
but a Cause does not have to be a Problem

A Solution can be an Effect
but an Effect does not have to be a Solution

If you agree and understand this, then you understand why I say your model doesn't work. If you do not understand this, there is nothing I can say additional that will make it clear.

[Vudu_Prince]

So first, I'm done arguing the Genesis text. Every incoming criticism has been addressed and debunked, every point articulated has been confirmed, and every outgoing criticism has been substantiated with the opposition's inability to address. The case has been made, and those who read it, know it. And those that will come to read it, will see it. You don't have to say uncle (it wasn't the goal from the start)

In closing
A Problem can be a Cause
but a Cause does not have to be a Problem

A Solution can be an Effect
but an Effect does not have to be a Solution

If you agree and understand this, then you understand why I say your model doesn't work. If you do not understand this, there is nothing I can say additional that will make it clear.

Bingo and there it is. You have tried and tried again to get me away from the text because all of your arguments fail. You have cited two biblical verses. #1 Romans 5-12 and #2 Genesis 3:21. You can't even take credit for Genesis 5:5 because I brought it in. You have attempted to bait me in a theory based sub argument and are frustrated because I won't bite. You thought you had a iron clad argument as you sat on your boat fishing and your line was hooked on what you thought was a big fish. It was actually a red herring and not a fish at all. I was under the water and I took your line swam under your boat and hooked it to the other side. I then tugged on it and tugged on it and you pulled thinking it was a big fish then bam your boat flipped over and you realized it was me all along. lol


Now I need to say Uncle when you have stated you are no longer gonna use the text? lol Yeah Okay. Why? Because using the text and text alone:

#1 You can't show that the Serpent doesn't open eyes which he said he would
#2 You can't show that the Serpent lied to Eve about becoming a God
#3. You can't show that the Serpent didn't set the stage for Eve to think become conscious and link the cause and effect together to have a purpose.
#4You can't show that Eve died.

So now you don't wanna use the text no more. lol My truth has been the blade sticking out of the Ice covered in blood. You just didn't as the wolf notice the blade just the blood. This is exactly what Omali Yeshitela was describing on the opening of Lets Get Free by Dead Prez. In this argument the Wolf analogy fits your purposely because you have killed yourself and shunned your own faith showing the willingness to put the text down and use unsupported theories and sub-arguments. You are destroying your own faith in the process which was the plan all along. The Satan who gets the Christian to put his bible down to use outside false superlatives to prove his stance. The hunter who tricks the wolf into attacking the blood covered blade and as he see's more blood he thinks he is gaining an achievement but doesn't realize until it's to late that it was his blood all along and he dies... The wolf analogy fits you perfectly. Listen.....



I accept that you concede. :handshake:

[nsync]

... basically what you give us all the time. LOL Why re-cite, what has aready been placed on the board? That makes no sense. Nevermind anyhow. This is a deadend.

May 2, 2009 10:24:28 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

You entire stance is sermonal. You're preaching. Can you cite Genesis in some way and connect it with your thoughts? A theory without any cited data is....

[Vudu_Prince]

May 12, 2009 18:20:24 GMT -5 @nsync said:

... basically what you give us all the time. LOL Why re-cite, what has aready been placed on the board? That makes no sense. Nevermind anyhow. This is a deadend.

lol.. you do realize where I stand spiritually is like completely over your head. You do realize that don't you? lol. This isn't Sunday school. I'm not buck dancing and spittin doing the funky chicken in the bullchit oops I meant the pulpit. I bring my thoughts and hope those who do read will take the time to double back read on their own formulate an opposite opinion and go from there. You don't read. If you were ever in a session about building and you asked the question what does it mean to be conscious and why is it important? After it has been answered.. your novitiate' would have been exposed and any further questions would go unanswered. Pick up a book sistah and get on your magic. You're the first teacher of the child... I know sistahs who'd eat you alive for fun. lol

With that yes this is a dead end... Yall need to just take this ass whuppin like the good Christians yall are. Iono maybe yall wincing and crying aloud like JC was on the crizoss. Simply put I used your own text and busted you, Damie and whoever else was reading with it that sided with yall asses with it. This wasn't even a contest. I didn't even have to dig much.. lol Bring ya Deacons next time maybe you'll fare better.

[nsync]

Ehh...I do realize that, VP ,I really do. Not only is it "above my head", but it is also beyond it as well. LOL I try to go there with you, but you attempt to insult me instead of clarifying your perspective for further debate. It's a lonely place where you are : always being "right" while everyone else is wrong, is it not? I'm starting to wonder if you like it that way.

Secondly, I feel exhausted trying to debate every point you make. To me that's circular. You are already having an outstanding debate with Damie where scripture is being presented, interpreted and those interpretations are being refuted. When people are building together they know when to take the lead and when to listen(in this case read) I have read what you said, but at some point certain contextual "evidence" must be clarified. If you can not humble yourself to clarify and/or answer the tough questions then you are less of a spiritual guidance and more of an egotistical scholar.

…I’ll be back with my core contention later.

[Vudu_Prince]

May 13, 2009 7:35:37 GMT -5 @nsync said:

Ehh...I do realize that, VP ,I really do. Not only is it "above my head", but it is also beyond it as well. LOL I try to go there with you, but you attempt to insult me instead of clarifying your perspective for further debate. It's a lonely place where you are : always being "right" while everyone else is wrong, is it not? I'm starting to wonder if you like it that way.

Secondly, I feel exhausted trying to debate every point you make. To me that's circular. You are already having an outstanding debate with Damie where scripture is being presented, interpreted and those interpretations are being refuted. When people are building together they know when to take the lead and when to listen(in this case read) I have read what you said, but at some point certain contextual "evidence" must be clarified. If you can not humble yourself to clarify and/or answer the tough questions then you are less of a spiritual guidance and more of an egotistical scholar.

…I’ll be back with my core contention later.

Your sincerity is paper thin. Seriously. Never do you have anything to offer... You seriously think anything in here has been refuted? Name the scripture. lol Show me where... See basically you are being passive aggressive well rather aggressive passive. You throw your hands and when someone blocks it and throw back you get sensitive. I don't need the cosign. I know my chit is tight. Period. So why don't you give it the ole college try refute

#1 The Serpent doesn't open eyes which he said he would
#2 The Serpent lied to Eve about becoming a God
#3.The Serpent didn't set the stage for Eve to think become conscious and link the cause and effect together to have a purpose.
#4That Eve didn't die.

Save the "interpretations" and buck dancing. Post a scripture. I personally don't think you even know where to start. lol As for me always being right... naw I just pick my battles wisely. When I choose to speak I know I have an in depth understanding of the subject matter and I can effectively articulate my stance. Try it sometimes you'd notice a difference.

[nsync]

I'll start here VP. I am not trying to debate you at this point. I am trying to understand YOUR PERSPECTIVE. I know the other perspective well, because it is basically my own. LOL

Sigh...
Okay let me go find a scripture for you. It may take some time because I am actually going to pull out the bible. No online cutting and pasting for me. I'll be back. I promise.

May 14, 2009 2:01:38 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

May 13, 2009 7:35:37 GMT -5 @nsync said:

Ehh...I do realize that, VP ,I really do. Not only is it "above my head", but it is also beyond it as well. LOL I try to go there with you, but you attempt to insult me instead of clarifying your perspective for further debate. It's a lonely place where you are : always being "right" while everyone else is wrong, is it not? I'm starting to wonder if you like it that way.

Secondly, I feel exhausted trying to debate every point you make. To me that's circular. You are already having an outstanding debate with Damie where scripture is being presented, interpreted and those interpretations are being refuted. When people are building together they know when to take the lead and when to listen(in this case read) I have read what you said, but at some point certain contextual "evidence" must be clarified. If you can not humble yourself to clarify and/or answer the tough questions then you are less of a spiritual guidance and more of an egotistical scholar.

…I’ll be back with my core contention later.

Your sincerity is paper thin. Seriously. Never do you have anything to offer... You seriously think anything in here has been refuted? Name the scripture. lol Show me where... See basically you are being passive aggressive well rather aggressive passive. You throw your hands and when someone blocks it and throw back you get sensitive. I don't need the cosign. I know my chit is tight. Period. So why don't you give it the ole college try refute

#1 The Serpent doesn't open eyes which he said he would
#2 The Serpent lied to Eve about becoming a God
#3.The Serpent didn't set the stage for Eve to think become conscious and link the cause and effect together to have a purpose.
#4That Eve didn't die.

Save the "interpretations" and buck dancing. Post a scripture. I personally don't think you even know where to start. lol As for me always being right... naw I just pick my battles wisely. When I choose to speak I know I have an in depth understanding of the subject matter and I can effectively articulate my stance. Try it sometimes you'd notice a difference.

[nsync]

From the New Living Translation if you don't mind

Psalms 120 1-4,6-7

1.I took my troubles to the Lord; I cried out to him, and he answered my prayer
2.Rescue me, O lord, from liars and from all deceitful people
3.O deceptive tongue what will God do to you?
How will he increase your punishment?
4.You will be pierced with sharp arrows and burned with glowing coals.



6. I am tired of living among people who hate peace.
7.I search for peace; but when I speak of peace they want war!


*clears throat*

Amen.

[nsync]

Now that we got A SCRIPTURE out of the way ...
I want to add that I never said that YOUR interpretations were refuted. I said interpretations were refuted. Why did you defensively assume they were your interpretations and yours alone?

I really don't want to play a semantics game, but I must point that out because honestly I thought you were bringing up some interesting point. I even took them to bible study to see what others had to say.

I ask you a question and you say I offer nothing in return. Okay Im cool with that because obviously you have nothing to give either or you would just answer. LOL

*In your attempt to understand my aggressive passiveness---I'll have to let you know that I am putting LOL because your stances and approaches incite me. In response I consider this light hearted banter. I am not taking this personal. I hope you are not either.

Anyhow as promised....

My core contention is with your notion that Adam and Eve were given free will by satan. They were given choice. They were able to think for themselves at this point.


I asked you why thinking was important. This is what you said. *refresher*

It's what makes you you. Lets look at your 5 Senses. Sight, Hearing, Touch, Taste, Smell.

What makes you conscious of your 5 senses.

What makes you able to See? To notice a difference. If you can't see something then you are blind. If someone shines a light in your eyes and you don't blink.. you don't see the light.. then as it concerns that light source your are Blind.

If someone plays a sound and you don't hear it.. then as concern to that sound you are deaf.

If someone touches you and you don't feel it then as in concern to that person you have no sense of touch.

If someone puts something on your tongue and you don't taste it then as in concern to that substance you have no sense of taste.

If someone emits a smell in the air and you don't smell it as concern to that substance you lack a sense of smell.


Consciousness is being able to notice relative change from one state to the other. Thought is being able to access these changes to formulate what you believe is truth. If you can't do neither you are ignorant. If someone blocks that then to them you are a slave. It's simple.

Your answer tells me you interpreted *dang there is that word again ;D* that I needed you to educate me on what thinking is. That's not the case. What I wanted to know is WHY is thinking so important(especially in the case of adam and eve and particulalry for you.)

Somewhere in your response you concluded that the lack of "consciousness" and thinking left someone a slave to the person who took those options from them...

be back.

[Vudu_Prince]

May 14, 2009 8:43:32 GMT -5 @nsync said:

From the New Living Translation if you don't mind

Psalms 120 1-4,6-7

1.I took my troubles to the Lord; I cried out to him, and he answered my prayer
2.Rescue me, O lord, from liars and from all deceitful people
3.O deceptive tongue what will God do to you?
How will he increase your punishment?
4.You will be pierced with sharp arrows and burned with glowing coals.



6. I am tired of living among people who hate peace.
7.I search for peace; but when I speak of peace they want war!


*clears throat*

Amen.

This is exactly what I mean. This topic has been going on for some time now and you have just proved your ignorance to the entire subject matter. Seriously... you need to sit down, stay quiet and read your bible.

What the Christian should have done to stifle VP's argument or atleast slow it down and bring some cloud of doubt.

I hid my anti-thesis from the beginning.. I called Eve by that name from the beginning. Being the unconscious Christian... all fell for it and gobbled it up. I also stayed out of Genesis Chapter 1

The first scripture that should have been cited was

Gen 1:27 and it states
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created THEM.

The second scripture that should have been cited was Gen 1:26 as in concern to Adam being made to be a slave
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let THEM rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The third question that should have been asked was...who named Eve? When was her name given? The answer is here.

Gen 3:20And ADAM called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

So you guys could have argued the point using the text that Adam could have been used for both as the woman wasn't given a name until after the the serpent incident happened and it was given by Adam....

Of course I would have argued as most scholars have that there are in fact two creations in Genesis. One when clearly man and woman are made together at the same time. They are also given the right to eat from every tree. Yup all of them.

Genesis 1:29
29And God said, Behold, I have given you EVERY herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of ALL the earth, and EVERY tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Basically Genesis 1 makes Genesis 2 and 3 unstable. It shows contradiction after contradiction. But a true anti argument could have been obtained. smdh... I even said there was an out...smdh

Now. You have proven you are not intelligently aware of your own faith. You really need to just sit quiet and read up. Seriously speaking it would be beneath me to engage with you any further concerning this topic. You have an entry level of knowledge enriched with an infantile range of understanding.

[nsync]

I can't stand you! I told you I would be back. LOL

Right here...Im put my response. Then Ima read your response.






In the first Chapter of Genesis it clearly states that God created the heavens, earth, animals and man. This means God rightfully has dominion over all things, because God is the ultimate creator. Actually around verse 26 it speaks of God saying that man will be created to reign over the fish and the seas and all other animals. In 27 it moves on to say that God created man in God’s image. That’s very generous of a creator to share a level of dominance with one of it’s creations.

So how it is that God created man with the intentions of man being a slave when God is clearly sharing rule? Does that make sense? God gave man dominion over the things that God has created. Since when does a slave have free reign?

In Genesis 2 vs 15 it says the Lord placed man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it. Kinda like supervision, ya know? …like giving man a position to run it the way man would like. Once again there is no slavery here.

In vs 16 He says you may FREELY eat the fruit of every tree in the garden ---except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit you surely will die.

This is reasonable to me. God has given man place in the Garden to look after things that God has created. God knows what God has created and warns the man not to eat of a certain tree and God TELLS the man the outcome if he should eat it. How is this God making man “blind” to what is really going on? God does not restrict man from eating from THIS tree. He simply WARNS him not to eat of it based on the results that will abound.

If man was a slave he would be RESTRICTED from the tree to the point where he COULD NOT PHYSICALLY access it in the first place.

Okay in chapter 3(of Genesis) (which has been placed in this thread at least once) we find that the serpent speaks to Eve and tells her that what God says is a lie(she will not die) she will be like God and know Good and Evil. Then vs 6 says THE WOMAN WAS CONVINCED. That don’t seem like consciousness (as a result of thinking) to me. That seems like she went from listening to one source (one that would be more accurate sense he created everything including the serpent) to the argument of another. Eve did not research a doggone thing. She didn’t go back to God and asking for clarification. She didn’t think out possible outcomes. She just focused on “you will be like God”. That was great enough for her. Therefore she chomped down on the fruit.
Where oh where does satan give Adam and Eve free will? If anything he guided them into greed’s slavery.


However, to me (at this point) it has very little to do with who lied(even though it’s clear who did), who told the truth ,who was being slippery etc. It has to do with how we are viewing “thinking and consciousness” in this passages most specifically. If following one word over another is thinking, then thinking does not bring about free will as you stated. Following the scriptures ( as you suggest) lets see what your concept of “free will” brought about through thinking (which is really following someone else’s lead in this case) and consciousness(which just really means now one knows they are naked and unworthy)”


What happened after Eve and Adam “thought”:


From Gensis 3 vs 14b-19

1.Naked and paranoia
2. damnation
3.Hostility between one another
4.Hostility between offspring (which we see soon after see with Cain and Abel)
5.(woman) pregnancy during birth &rule over husband but desire to do the reverse)
6.(man)Cursing of the ground which they would at that point have to tend to make a living
7. A return from the ground which they were made (death)

Please think about this long and hard.

WHAT DOES ONE ULTIMATELY GET FROM “THINKING”—as you have suggested it (going against that which is ALREADY defined)…what does ONE GAIN FROM CONSCIOUSNESS? FREEDOM…what DOES THIS TYPE OF FREEDOM ALLOT THEM?

I don’t see how Adam and Eve benefited from the type of thinking you are praising. If anything situations got a whole lot worse for them. So how are you convincing folks that “thinking, consciousness, choice, freedom of thought” are beneficial to man kind, BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE INTERPRETED ABOUT THESE SCRIPTURES?

May 14, 2009 10:42:50 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

May 14, 2009 8:43:32 GMT -5 @nsync said:

From the New Living Translation if you don't mind

Psalms 120 1-4,6-7

1.I took my troubles to the Lord; I cried out to him, and he answered my prayer
2.Rescue me, O lord, from liars and from all deceitful people
3.O deceptive tongue what will God do to you?
How will he increase your punishment?
4.You will be pierced with sharp arrows and burned with glowing coals.



6. I am tired of living among people who hate peace.
7.I search for peace; but when I speak of peace they want war!


*clears throat*

Amen.

This is exactly what I mean. This topic has been going on for some time now and you have just proved your ignorance to the entire subject matter. Seriously... you need to sit down, stay quiet and read your bible.

What the Christian should have done to stifle VP's argument or atleast slow it down and bring some cloud of doubt.

I hid my anti-thesis from the beginning.. I called Eve by that name from the beginning. Being the unconscious Christian... all fell for it and gobbled it up. I also stayed out of Genesis Chapter 1

The first scripture that should have been cited was

Gen 1:27 and it states
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created THEM.

The second scripture that should have been cited was Gen 1:26 as in concern to Adam being made to be a slave
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let THEM rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

The third question that should have been asked was...who named Eve? When was her name given? The answer is here.

Gen 3:20And ADAM called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

So you guys could have argued the point using the text that Adam could have been used for both as the woman wasn't given a name until after the the serpent incident happened and it was given by Adam....

Of course I would have argued as most scholars have that there are in fact two creations in Genesis. One when clearly man and woman are made together at the same time. They are also given the right to eat from every tree. Yup all of them.

Genesis 1:29
29And God said, Behold, I have given you EVERY herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of ALL the earth, and EVERY tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Basically Genesis 1 makes Genesis 2 and 3 unstable. It shows contradiction after contradiction. But a true anti argument could have been obtained. smdh... I even said there was an out...smdh

Now. You have proven you are not intelligently aware of your own faith. You really need to just sit quiet and read up. Seriously speaking it would be beneath me to engage with you any further concerning this topic. You have an entry level of knowledge enriched with an infantile range of understanding.

[nsync]

How you gonna come in and display your own anti-thesis. LOL How you gonna come in and tell on yourself. If there are contridictions in the genesis story then why are you quoting it to PROVE your own side???

Um who really needs to sit down in this situation? LOL

I really can't stand you VP, I just can't. LOL

P.S. don't tell me you didnt like my scripture. Lies lies and more lies

[No Screen Name]

For the Christians in this post: I came across this, and figure I'd share.

www.rbc.org/uploadedfiles/Bible_Study/Discovery_Series/PDF/what_in_the_world_is_satan_doing.pdf

[nsync]

I couldn't open this Z for some reason.

[Gee-Are]

May 6, 2009 14:21:09 GMT -5 DamieQue™ said:

Okay first... the assertions concerning Adam's consciousness, awareness, and thought relies on VP's coding hypothesis. The coding hypothesis is NOT in the text - judge for yourself whether or not he's making his argument from the text the entire time.

Here's a further problem with VP's argument. He hasn't addressed the Adam / Satan communication issue at all - if you recall VP asserted that Adam got relative difference from talking to Satan which resulted in free will. The text doesn't support that and he's been avoiding this point like the plague. But now he's coming back to it because his argument now relies on Eve being alive forever. If you haven't noted for yourself, the book of Genesis (to which VP wants to constrain all debate) does not explicitly say when Eve died. (Notice however when he brought up this point I didn't side step it - I addressed it). It does say when Adam died. All that's left for VP to argue is that somehow Eve lived forever.

Let's read the text. We can establish that God didn't lie by watching Adam alone. No one can argue that God didn't tell Adam that he would die if he ate from the tree (Genesis 2:17). No one can argue that Adam ate from the tree (Genesis 3:6), no one can argue that Adam didn't die (Genesis 5:5). The text says all of these things. You don't have to intrept, add caveats, or substitute hypothesis as facts... the text is plain. So anyone that says God lied is wrong.



Now since Adam didn't talk to the serpent directly we can also refute the claim that the serpent gave Adam free will based on the argument of "relative difference". Note: This is actually inconsequential because freewill is established by the fact that Adam and Eve had the ability to choose. Being presented with a choice would have made no difference if they couldn't have acted on it. The lynch pin to free will is not temptation, it's the ability to act, the ability to choose. All that is left is did Eve live forever and did the serpent lie.

Let's look at the text... what was required for someone to live forever? They had to eat from the Tree of life. Did either one of them eat from that tree? No. How do we know? Genesis 3:21 says that God prevents them from doing so - even VP has acknowledged this. Further proof is that Adam's death is explicitly mentioned (Genesis 5:5) - and he wouldn't have died if he had eaten from the tree of life. He ate the same fruit as Eve (Genesis 3:6), so she couldn't have eaten from the tree of life either.

Now did the serpent lie? VP's contention was, well Damie, if the serpent didn't talk to Adam, then he couldn't have lied to Adam.

Logically stated this is true, however - the contention was that the Serpent lied - not simply that he lied to Adam. The key to understanding here is that the Serpent doesn't have to have lied to Adam to have lied. The conversation that Eve and the serpent have is in the "plural" not the singular. When the serpent first approaches Eve he questions what God says and Eve answers "WE" not "I" - "WE may eat the fruit from the trees of the garden, Except the fruit from the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." And there it is Ladies and Gentlemen. The serpent refutes THIS statement - and that statement pertained to Adam and Eve not dying. There is ample evidence already to conclude that Eve didn't live forever (she didn't eat from the tree of life being one, the fact that the other women's death also weren't recorded during that period, see Adah, Zillah, and Naamah) but the truth is we don't need it as evidence... we know she ate the same fruit as Adam, and we know Adam died - which the serpent refuted would happen. Q.E.D. The serpent lied.

So here is what has been established

God told the truth
The serpent lied

Damie you said creation story was about purpose. Lets see a defination for purpose.

I hadn't realized this thread had taken off the way it did. I believe there's been a slight hijack here, but that's okay. I like this conversation.

To Damie, VP, Outtie, and anyone else participating...

Would it be a valid argument to say that neither party told the ENTIRE truth? Hear me out.

I liken this situation to while growing up, your parents or authority figures may have told you, "Illegal drugs are bad! People who do drugs - go to jail! People who use drugs - die!"

Strong statements, right? and fairly effective...I'd imagine a lot of you probably waited a bit longer than you might have to do drugs, or didn't do them at all because of those statements.

So hypothetically let's say peer pressure comes and someone influences you or 'someone you know' to try something (insert drug of choice here). They say, "Drugs are cool, it's like nothing you've ever experienced before!"

You try it and you realize a euphoria, a high, a feeling like you've never felt before. You feel invincible and wonder why you've waited so long to take advantage of this wonderful goodness. There could be nothing bad about drugs, your parents are wack, and they just don't know what they're talking about. You're not dead! No cops are around to take you to jail. They're LIARS!

So you keep doing drugs for a while, sooner or later, you slip up and get caught with a small amount, but no jail time. Eh, no big deal...more time passes and a few buddies of yours get arrested or die due to drug use, and you finally discontinue your drug use.

Now, you didn't die or go to jail, but you witnessed others who did.

So who lied? Your parents or the influential peer?

The parents only spoke to one part of drug use, the bad or negative and left out the euphoric state, entertainment and unbelievable highs. The peer only discussed the good stuff and left our the jail.

When tested, both told parts of the truth, so which one is right? Is it fair to call either one a liar? Is it fair to call either one a truth teller?

Thoughts?

[DamieQue™]

LOL - Ghost, let me say this. I think what you are commenting on may not necessarily be accurate because the debate you saw here was one that was indulged purely for an exercise in semantic arguments and logical structure. The actual death that is being referred to in the scriptures according to many scholars is a spiritual death - which is itself a metaphor for something else (then as in now, there's no need to go down that rabbit hole)

I would assert that there was no partial truth told from a Biblical perspective - but I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that human beings can fail to detail every facet of a discussion that might be pertinent.

We do it all the time. Especially when we deal with foreign relations, we tend to point out what people are doing without noting WHY they are doing it, painting a skewed picture.

The concept however (IMO) does not extend to the passage we were debating. And I still kind of think the original question relies on semantics... and hinges on this idea: can there be a perfect flaw?

[ReignMan19]

You intellegent mofos write entirely too much... here is what I believe to be true... It may have already been said multiple times...

1) Adam and Eve DID have free will ( if they did not Satan's words would have landed on deaf ears)

2) They were aware they were naked

BUT

They were not aware there was anything wrong with that UNTIL they ate from the tree which introduced SIN and in turn ... you know they rest of the story...

Feel free to correct where you see fit...

[Vudu_Prince]

Mar 30, 2010 12:49:30 GMT -5 ReignMan19 said:

You intellegent mofos write entirely too much... here is what I believe to be true... It may have already been said multiple times...

1) Adam and Eve DID have free will ( if they did not Satan's words would have landed on deaf ears)

Per the story Satan set the stage for Eve to think. He never spoke to Adam. If they had Free Will before then, Satan's presence wouldn't have been needed.

2) They were aware they were naked

Just because the narrator stated they had no shame in each other's presence doesn't mean they were conscious. Consciousness isn't achieved until you have a relative difference. Again Satan provided them the difference. Besides

Genesis 1:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.


9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Kinda simple.

BUT

They were not aware there was anything wrong with that UNTIL they ate from the tree which introduced SIN and in turn ... you know they rest of the story...

Feel free to correct where you see fit...

Kinda they were not conscious until they were given a relative difference. The above passages prove they didn't know they were naked. Not only that they had no concept of anything. Whether people like it or not per the story it is Satan who gives man consciousness and awareness. There is only one person who is lying here.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For 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.

22And 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:

Again very simple.

[Julie Art]

I co-sign with you on this matter Reign. That is the way I understand it too.

Mar 30, 2010 12:49:30 GMT -5 ReignMan19 said:

You intellegent mofos write entirely too much... here is what I believe to be true... It may have already been said multiple times...

1) Adam and Eve DID have free will ( if they did not Satan's words would have landed on deaf ears)

2) They were aware they were naked

BUT

They were not aware there was anything wrong with that UNTIL they ate from the tree which introduced SIN and in turn ... you know they rest of the story...

Feel free to correct where you see fit...

[Gee-Are]

Mar 30, 2010 12:18:20 GMT -5 DamieQue™ said:

LOL - Ghost, let me say this. I think what you are commenting on may not necessarily be accurate because the debate you saw here was one that was indulged purely for an exercise in semantic arguments and logical structure. The actual death that is being referred to in the scriptures according to many scholars is a spiritual death - which is itself a metaphor for something else (then as in now, there's no need to go down that rabbit hole)

I would assert that there was no partial truth told from a Biblical perspective - but I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that human beings can fail to detail every facet of a discussion that might be pertinent.

We do it all the time. Especially when we deal with foreign relations, we tend to point out what people are doing without noting WHY they are doing it, painting a skewed picture.

The concept however (IMO) does not extend to the passage we were debating. And I still kind of think the original question relies on semantics... and hinges on this idea: can there be a perfect flaw?

So you don't believe that it could be argued that Adam and Eve were told only part of the story by both parties?

Granted, they eventually got the FULL story through the partial testimony of both influences, and maybe had less reason to take the word of the serpent with more weight, however, there would have been no reason to even entertain the idea from the serpent if all of the information was given.

When you make decisions, don't you like to have as much information at your disposal as possible?

To answer the question about the perfect flaw...I guess I would answer yes, it is possible. If that flaw is capable of derailing a planned system then yes.

Going back to the Satan aspect of that question, I guess if it could be proven that Satan totally disrupted God's plan then yes, his flaw is perfect. But time still has to play that hand out right?

[ReignMan19]

hmmm.. I disagree with your conscious theory.. again Eve would not have been able to follow Satan's proclamation if she was not conscious or free to think and do what she pleased. Its evident she was able to discern and make decisions.

Is it possible tho (just a possibility) that naked didn't mean the literal sense of naked....

Mar 30, 2010 18:06:08 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

Mar 30, 2010 12:49:30 GMT -5 ReignMan19 said:

You intellegent mofos write entirely too much... here is what I believe to be true... It may have already been said multiple times...

1) Adam and Eve DID have free will ( if they did not Satan's words would have landed on deaf ears)

Per the story Satan set the stage for Eve to think. He never spoke to Adam. If they had Free Will before then, Satan's presence wouldn't have been needed.

Just because the narrator stated they had no shame in each other's presence doesn't mean they were conscious. Consciousness isn't achieved until you have a relative difference. Again Satan provided them the difference. Besides

Genesis 1:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.


9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Kinda simple.

BUT

They were not aware there was anything wrong with that UNTIL they ate from the tree which introduced SIN and in turn ... you know they rest of the story...

Feel free to correct where you see fit...

Kinda they were not conscious until they were given a relative difference. The above passages prove they didn't know they were naked. Not only that they had no concept of anything. Whether people like it or not per the story it is Satan who gives man consciousness and awareness. There is only one person who is lying here.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For 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.

22And 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:

Again very simple.

[DamieQue™]

Mar 31, 2010 0:58:57 GMT -5 Gee-Are said:

Mar 30, 2010 12:18:20 GMT -5 DamieQue™ said:

LOL - Ghost, let me say this. I think what you are commenting on may not necessarily be accurate because the debate you saw here was one that was indulged purely for an exercise in semantic arguments and logical structure. The actual death that is being referred to in the scriptures according to many scholars is a spiritual death - which is itself a metaphor for something else (then as in now, there's no need to go down that rabbit hole)

I would assert that there was no partial truth told from a Biblical perspective - but I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that human beings can fail to detail every facet of a discussion that might be pertinent.

We do it all the time. Especially when we deal with foreign relations, we tend to point out what people are doing without noting WHY they are doing it, painting a skewed picture.

The concept however (IMO) does not extend to the passage we were debating. And I still kind of think the original question relies on semantics... and hinges on this idea: can there be a perfect flaw?

So you don't believe that it could be argued that Adam and Eve were told only part of the story by both parties?

Granted, they eventually got the FULL story through the partial testimony of both influences, and maybe had less reason to take the word of the serpent with more weight, however, there would have been no reason to even entertain the idea from the serpent if all of the information was given.

When you make decisions, don't you like to have as much information at your disposal as possible?

To answer the question about the perfect flaw...I guess I would answer yes, it is possible. If that flaw is capable of derailing a planned system then yes.

Going back to the Satan aspect of that question, I guess if it could be proven that Satan totally disrupted God's plan then yes, his flaw is perfect. But time still has to play that hand out right?

Semantics and constructs may allow us to make an argument that Adam and Eve weren't told the whole truth, but if you follow the idea to it's logical extension we are forced to conclude that no one has EVER been told the whole truth by anyone. In part because, setting it up as you have, the individual decides what is and isn't pertinent retroactively for everyone else based on THEIR perspective. If you ask me what my screen name is, and I say Damie, it is entirely up for you to decide later on that the right answer was actually DamieQue. You chose the context and facts that were pertinent according to you. It seems to me, that you are suggesting no different here. You are deciding that certain things are pertinent AFTER the fact, NONE of which changes the truth of what God said at the beginning. Literally and metaphorically, death followed after their disobedience. Not even the most flawed reading of the Bible can refute it.

Now - as to your comments about information - the root of misinformation is still information isn't it? So when you ask don't I like to have as much information as my disposal as possible I say no - I want accurate information. There was PLENTY of information available to people about Health Care Reform... how much of it was accurate? Merely presenting thoughts, ideas, words, or even bits and bytes and zeros and ones doesn't mean one has presented or transmitted the truth. What the Serpent added was misinformation - plain and simple. The text is quite clear. And that brings me to another point of contention... who defines what the whole truth is?

Did the Alphas tell you everything they knew when you were still a prospect? Were they under any obligation to do so? Was there even a "truth" for you to be given outside of what they said? Did they hide the truth from you or did they simply not mention things that weren't your concern?

As far as flaw and perfection... the concepts themselves are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, however in your context one is merely a description of the effectiveness of a planned disruption, and the other is the disruption itself. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not your conversion of fairly well defined concepts into euphemisms results in a compelling argument, in this instance I would say it does not (at least not for me). Perfect and effective are not synonymous, neither are flaws and plans.

Finally - I for one, do not feel as though the one who intended to deceive should be given credit for any positive outcome that happened DESPITE their deception. That shouldn't require any additional explanation.

[Julie Art]

Mar 31, 2010 12:50:39 GMT -5 DamieQue™ said:

Mar 31, 2010 0:58:57 GMT -5 Gee-Are said:

So you don't believe that it could be argued that Adam and Eve were told only part of the story by both parties?

Granted, they eventually got the FULL story through the partial testimony of both influences, and maybe had less reason to take the word of the serpent with more weight, however, there would have been no reason to even entertain the idea from the serpent if all of the information was given.

When you make decisions, don't you like to have as much information at your disposal as possible?

To answer the question about the perfect flaw...I guess I would answer yes, it is possible. If that flaw is capable of derailing a planned system then yes.

Going back to the Satan aspect of that question, I guess if it could be proven that Satan totally disrupted God's plan then yes, his flaw is perfect. But time still has to play that hand out right?

Semantics and constructs may allow us to make an argument that Adam and Eve weren't told the whole truth, but if you follow the idea to it's logical extension we are forced to conclude that no one has EVER been told the whole truth by anyone. In part because, setting it up as you have, the individual decides what is and isn't pertinent retroactively for everyone else based on THEIR perspective. If you ask me what my screen name is, and I say Damie, it is entirely up for you to decide later on that the right answer was actually DamieQue. You chose the context and facts that were pertinent according to you. It seems to me, that you are suggesting no different here. You are deciding that certain things are pertinent AFTER the fact, NONE of which changes the truth of what God said at the beginning. Literally and metaphorically, death followed after their disobedience. Not even the most flawed reading of the Bible can refute it.

Now - as to your comments about information - the root of misinformation is still information isn't it? So when you ask don't I like to have as much information as my disposal as possible I say no - I want accurate information. There was PLENTY of information available to people about Health Care Reform... how much of it was accurate? Merely presenting thoughts, ideas, words, or even bits and bytes and zeros and ones doesn't mean one has presented or transmitted the truth. What the Serpent added was misinformation - plain and simple. The text is quite clear. And that brings me to another point of contention... who defines what the whole truth is?

Did the Alphas tell you everything they knew when you were still a prospect? Were they under any obligation to do so? Was there even a "truth" for you to be given outside of what they said? Did they hide the truth from you or did they simply not mention things that weren't your concern?

As far as flaw and perfection... the concepts themselves are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, however in your context one is merely a description of the effectiveness of a planned disruption, and the other is the disruption itself. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not your conversion of fairly well defined concepts into euphemisms results in a compelling argument, in this instance I would say it does not (at least not for me). Perfect and effective are not synonymous, neither are flaws and plans.

Finally - I for one, do not feel as though the one who intended to deceive should be given credit for any positive outcome that happened DESPITE their deception. That shouldn't require any additional explanation.

Underlined part, exhalt.

[Vudu_Prince]

I don't see it that way. Free Will is defined as taking on actions being free from constraints. Therefore it is impossible that Eve had Free Will until the Serpent told her that the God of the story was lying which he was.

Ask yourself these questions... Did eating from the tree condemn man to death or did the "God" placing the cheribuim around the Tree of Life do it? The God showed fear that since Man now had knowledge they would know that could also take of the tree of life and live forever. He blocks that.

Here is a correlation to also ponder. If a parent never talks with their children bout drug awareness and its pitfalls, can they discipline there children when they indulge? I say no.

Another correlation. If I'm preparing my team to face a 4-3 Defense but instead the opposing team jumps in a 3-4 can I discipline my lineman for missing blocking assignments if I haven't made any adjustments? Certainly not.

The God of the bible sought to keep man and woman blind and ignorant. They had no knowledge of Good or Evil so how could they be expected to deal with the Serpent? They were not prepared to do so.

Again its simple

Mar 31, 2010 12:38:18 GMT -5 ReignMan19 said:

hmmm.. I disagree with your conscious theory.. again Eve would not have been able to follow Satan's proclamation if she was not conscious or free to think and do what she pleased. Its evident she was able to discern and make decisions.

Is it possible tho (just a possibility) that naked didn't mean the literal sense of naked....

Mar 30, 2010 18:06:08 GMT -5 Vudu_Prince said:

Per the story Satan set the stage for Eve to think. He never spoke to Adam. If they had Free Will before then, Satan's presence wouldn't have been needed.

Just because the narrator stated they had no shame in each other's presence doesn't mean they were conscious. Consciousness isn't achieved until you have a relative difference. Again Satan provided them the difference. Besides

Genesis 1:7And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.


9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Kinda simple.



Kinda they were not conscious until they were given a relative difference. The above passages prove they didn't know they were naked. Not only that they had no concept of anything. Whether people like it or not per the story it is Satan who gives man consciousness and awareness. There is only one person who is lying here.

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For 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.

22And 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:

Again very simple.

[Vudu_Prince]

Mar 31, 2010 12:50:39 GMT -5 DamieQue™ said:

Mar 31, 2010 0:58:57 GMT -5 Gee-Are said:

So you don't believe that it could be argued that Adam and Eve were told only part of the story by both parties?

Granted, they eventually got the FULL story through the partial testimony of both influences, and maybe had less reason to take the word of the serpent with more weight, however, there would have been no reason to even entertain the idea from the serpent if all of the information was given.

When you make decisions, don't you like to have as much information at your disposal as possible?

To answer the question about the perfect flaw...I guess I would answer yes, it is possible. If that flaw is capable of derailing a planned system then yes.

Going back to the Satan aspect of that question, I guess if it could be proven that Satan totally disrupted God's plan then yes, his flaw is perfect. But time still has to play that hand out right?

Semantics and constructs may allow us to make an argument that Adam and Eve weren't told the whole truth, but if you follow the idea to it's logical extension we are forced to conclude that no one has EVER been told the whole truth by anyone. In part because, setting it up as you have, the individual decides what is and isn't pertinent retroactively for everyone else based on THEIR perspective. If you ask me what my screen name is, and I say Damie, it is entirely up for you to decide later on that the right answer was actually DamieQue. You chose the context and facts that were pertinent according to you. It seems to me, that you are suggesting no different here. You are deciding that certain things are pertinent AFTER the fact, NONE of which changes the truth of what God said at the beginning. Literally and metaphorically, death followed after their disobedience. Not even the most flawed reading of the Bible can refute it.

Now - as to your comments about information - the root of misinformation is still information isn't it? So when you ask don't I like to have as much information as my disposal as possible I say no - I want accurate information. There was PLENTY of information available to people about Health Care Reform... how much of it was accurate? Merely presenting thoughts, ideas, words, or even bits and bytes and zeros and ones doesn't mean one has presented or transmitted the truth. What the Serpent added was misinformation - plain and simple. The text is quite clear. And that brings me to another point of contention... who defines what the whole truth is?

Did the Alphas tell you everything they knew when you were still a prospect? Were they under any obligation to do so? Was there even a "truth" for you to be given outside of what they said? Did they hide the truth from you or did they simply not mention things that weren't your concern?

As far as flaw and perfection... the concepts themselves are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive, however in your context one is merely a description of the effectiveness of a planned disruption, and the other is the disruption itself. It's up to the individual to decide whether or not your conversion of fairly well defined concepts into euphemisms results in a compelling argument, in this instance I would say it does not (at least not for me). Perfect and effective are not synonymous, neither are flaws and plans.

Finally - I for one, do not feel as though the one who intended to deceive should be given credit for any positive outcome that happened DESPITE their deception. That shouldn't require any additional explanation.

Again can you show how Satan deceived? He said they would be Gods to know good and evil and the God of the bible confirms it. Soooo where is the deception? The key to living forever is eating from the Tree of Life. The "God" blocks the tree of life with cherbuims and a flaming sword because of man's knowledge. Man was gonna die anyway. Man was already tilling the ground anyway. So the "punishments" were already in place but since Adam was ignorant he didn't understand. No matter how you turn it... Satan gave woman and man knowledge per the story.