reply to post by Blue_Jay33
Yet you confirm my point by saying
So yes, good is a point of view. Good and evil are entirely subjective
Why is that those that are trying to deviate from biblical standard's always use this argument ?
Probably because they are more objective than people who think with their hearts, the most partial organ of the body. The heart doesn't care what it
needs, it cares what it wants.
In effect they are saying I know good and evil better than God knows them, or at least can judge these things for myself, I don't need God to
That's exactly what Satan told Eve.
God knows that when you eat it your eyes will be opened. You'll be like God, knowing good and evil
I find that particular selection interesting. The wording of it catches my eye. "You'll be like God, knowing good and evil."
Allow me to elaborate on my insights concerning this bit of scripture. When Adam and Eve partook of the fruit in the story, they suddenly knew good
and evil. But what does it mean to know good and evil? Since two men can look at the same thing and each may feel completely differently about that
thing, clearly good and evil cannot be absolute. If you need further proof, sit a Taliban member and an American in the same room together. Surely
they would disagree on good and evil, or at the very least, what each one entails.
Therefore, "knowing" good and evil may mean something a bit different. I'm inclined to belief that it was meant to say that Adam and Eve were able
to judge something according to how they felt about it. More simply put, they were able to describe it emotionally. They knew how it felt to think
something was bad, or how it felt to think something was good. I would support this theory by looking at the number of times they each felt something
was evil or good before eating that fruit. And if they DID, then obviously the fruit was not the cause of their dismissal.
So, let's trace that back to "God". If eating the fruit were to make them like "God", that implies "God" has the capability of saying, "I feel
badly about this," or "I feel good about that." In essence, his decisions are emotionally founded and therefore unstable, rather than purely
rational and therefore solidly grounded. And this can be seen all throughout the Bible. "God" has shown impulsive temper, unfair judgment, and
egotistical tendencies that have led to the demise of more than one civilization.
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. The math all adds up. With that new perspective on the matter, I'd like to conclude that particular response with this point:
sure, man may think he is better than "God", despite being weak and frail. But what if it's the other way around? What if we're the children he
never wanted? What if we're a failed experiment and he's fled to some other universe, leaving us to destroy ourselves as he knows we must, because
he discovered that has hard as he might try, he cannot create the symbol of perfection he sought as an eternal reminder of his own power?
This is all assuming the Biblical god ever existed, of course. Purely hypothetical.
And that basic ideology lives on today, your posts testify to that, but it was the fundamental challenge to God's sovereignty around 60 centuries
ago, and it still is today.
Sometimes, I wonder if our creation was your "God"s challenge to the universe, a challenge of power. That begs a number of assumptions, of course,
but it makes much more sense than the stories I hear in church. It would explain so much more.
But that's just a small theory to entertain to the side. After all, applying anthropomorphic features to such a being is folly beyond folly.