In the Image of God
- Thread starter Cristo
- Start date
Cristo
Well-known member
Clever perhaps, but more so an evasion of the original question to explain the paradise to us. I'm not discounting what Ana is saying as true, there is a certain awareness of things whether they are good or bad built right into the conscience of creation, but she is not acknowledging the difference between an awareness of something and having a knowledge of it based upon experience.What a clever reply. A veritable two edged sword!I also replied to your other comment but thought it was from Kevin! You made good points, very true and insightful.
Barnaby, do you know what paradise is like, or rather do you have faith that what has been presented within the bible is true? As the original premise states 'it is impossible to know something that does not exist'. Knowing and having faith are two distinctly different concepts of thought, i'm sure you would agree.
Ana
Well-known member
Conocer: verbo transitivo.
Averiguar por el ejercicio de las facultades intelectuales la naturaleza, cualidades y relaciones de las cosas.
Similar:
averiguar
enterarse
informarse
2.
verbo transitivo
Entender, advertir, saber, echar de ver a alguien o algo.
Similar:
saber
comprender
Averiguar por el ejercicio de las facultades intelectuales la naturaleza, cualidades y relaciones de las cosas.
Similar:
averiguar
enterarse
informarse
2.
verbo transitivo
Entender, advertir, saber, echar de ver a alguien o algo.
Similar:
saber
comprender
Ana
Well-known member
No sabes cómo es el paraíso y creas lineas del tiempo apocalípticas? Hablas de evasión y te tengo que explicar cómo es el reino de los cielos? En serio que te tengo que responder a esa pregunta? No comprendes que si tengo que contestarte a esa pregunta, te estarás definiendo a ti? Porque debería de contestar para no resultarte evasiva? Evasiva de que? Acaso quieres probarme?
Ay "Cristo"...(siempre se me hizo extraño dirigirme a alguien por ese nombre, haré una excepción ahora) que poco me está gustando la dirección que quieres tomar. No seré yo quien te diga lo que estás haciendo. Voy a evadirte por respeto, ahora intencionadamente.
Cristo
Well-known member
While I appreciate your strong-willed nature, and persistence, unless you can grasp the fundamental truth that it is impossible to know something that has not been manifested into existence, I don't' see the need to continue. I understand this paradox of knowing something and having knowledge of something can be confusing when one has actually never considered what it means to have knowledge of something, or simply has an awareness of it.
It doesn't need to be enigmatic in that there are only two possibilities, knowledge of good and knowledge of bad. Having an awareness of good and bad is one thing, having an actual event to associate those two are quite different, yet the contrast of the two is what make it so easy to recognize.
Your definition of 'to know' as it pertains to awareness, is completely different from actual first hand knowledge gained through association to an experience. When you can tell me you have actual knowledge of what paradise is like, let me know, I'll be the first to give you my ear.
Ana
Well-known member
Mateo 18:6 o debería de decir mejor Mateo 16:23. Esa es la cuestión ahora entre tú y yo.
Thank you for asking, yes everything is fine on this side of the 'pond' and thank you for answering me.
About that awareness of something compared to knowing, means for you then: That you first have to break your leg before you can know that it hurts.
Well, luckily for me, I understand it without having to feel the pain myself; and then I am far from perfect, like the angels and Satan before he sinned. 
Cristo
Well-known member
I
Actually, my perspective is different than the analogy you have presented and what it means to me. The knowledge I refer to is the knowledge that is gained through experience of an event, or that which one gains through the experience of having done. I believe that the person who actually breaks their leg will possess a much deeper and more detailed understanding of the experience compared to someone who merely knows that leg injuries are painful. The key distinction lies in the firsthand experience itself. Merely telling someone who has broken their leg that it is painful, when you haven't undergone that level of pain yourself, does not grant you the same level of understanding. While you can empathize and speculate about the intensity of the pain, true knowledge and understanding of the pain involved with a broken leg only comes through experiencing it firsthand.Thank you for asking, yes everything is fine on this side of the 'pond' and thank you for answering me.
About that awareness of something compared to knowing, means for you then: That you first have to break your leg before you can know that it hurts.
BARNABY THE DOG.
Well-known member
It’s an interesting question Cristo. I thought Ana’s reply very apt, because in many ways it answers the whole question. She is very astute that way - she clearly has some insight into the issue that is far reaching.
Do we need to have knowledge of sin via experience to “know” it? Not if we have a modicum of insight, no. We have our senses for that and not only our senses, but our intuition to visualise. All the expressions of hurt are available to us in our everyday life. We use them to to express what cannot be said. An observant psychiatrist can read the depth of depression in a persons’ expression. A mother can tell a child’s needs simply by its cry. A fox knows it must kill its prey before eating it lest it have its insides torn apart in its death struggle. We see the death of animals and see the grief in a child’s face. It can even be observed on animals where an elephant will grieve over its loss and others of the clan will comfort it. But there is far more to the sense of what is good or bad and what it means by subtraction alone.
We know what it feels like to be rejected. We learn by others reaction, beit pleasure, grief, anger. We do not need to have experienced these things to anticipate the result of our behaviours. If you take it to the extreme, consider the (true) psychopath who may not experience a conscience. People may assume they do not understand the issues, but they do, but they have no regulatory response to stimulate reasoning in the matter and thus moderate their behaviours. They do not ‘experience’ that. Thus if they cannot project such a response in others, then how can they assimilate the outcomes in their behaviours? So where does that leave the acknowledgment to experience you speak of?
Yet another example is anticipation. Another built-in safeguard from the creator. When telling Adam not to eat off the tree, and stating to him His ownership of the tree, how would that act as a deterrent unless Adam understood what was at stake. Stealing, depriving, disregard of another, pride, arrogance….where did the understanding of these things come from unless Adam was aware of their outcomes. You suggest that there is a difference between awareness and knowledge but that does not hold true when compared to the psychopathic understanding when knowledge does not necessarily make one aware of another’s perceptions. Therefore to function socially, we require insight into causation and outcomes, their gravity in meaning and their conceptual outcomes. Knowledge is equally valid in meaning as a projection. It is gathered through insight. Ask Marie Curie. She saw the outcome of the plutonium atom forty years before Oppenheimer proved the point.
Bk Kevin
Well-known member
Ana said Spanish to English
You don't know what paradise is like and you create apocalyptic timelines? You talk about evasion and I have to explain to you what the kingdom of heaven is like? Do I really have to answer that question? Don't you understand that if I have to answer that question, will you be defining yourself? Why should I answer so as not to be evasive? Evasive of what? Do you want to test me?
Oh "Christ"... (it always seemed strange to me to address someone by that name, I'll make an exception now) I'm not liking the direction you want to take. I won't be the one to tell you what you're doing. I'm going to avoid you out of respect, now intentionally.
Cristo
Well-known member
You ask, do we need personal experience of sin to truly have knowledge of it? We are born into sin, it is a fundamental part of our existence, thus you are speaking of our nature without considering what it was like when sin did not exist. You cannot compare the two. Prior to sin the only knowledge one had was one of good, do you disagree?
Comparing Adam's understanding with that of psychopaths oversimplifies how we grasp moral concepts. Psychopathy isn't just about lacking awareness; it runs deeper, affecting empathy and moral reasoning. These deficits go beyond a simple lack of understanding. It's not fair to suggest that knowledge and insight alone can make up for these complexities. Understanding morality involves more than just knowing right from wrong; it's about empathy, compassion, and recognizing the impact of our actions on others.
Knowledge typically involves awareness or understanding of existing information, facts, or concepts that are grounded in reality or have been experienced in some form. Prior to the sin by Satan, what did the angels ever experience? Badness? Could the angels describe to you an example of bad other than "something that goes contrary to my nature"? Knowledge of bad did not exist prior to sin. But don't argue with me, argue with God, for he is the one who said...
(Ge 3:22) “. . .And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. . .” Certainly, the same line of reasoning can be applied to the angelic realm who also had never experienced sin prior to Satans transgression.
To be honest, I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand for some. Before sin occured, badness did not exist, therefore there was no knowledge of it.
Last edited:
Bk Kevin
Well-known member
This scripture clearly shows that Knowledge to do good or bad had already existed before sin entered the world according to Genesis 3:22-B And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad,.
Genesis3:
22 And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad,+ and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life+ and eat and live to time indefinite,—”
Cristo
Well-known member
Gen 3:22 And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad, and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life+ and eat and live to time indefinite,”
I'm pretty sure we covered this, maybe you didn't see it. Who is the 'us' that is in reference in that scripture? Who is Jehovah speaking to? It is not to the angels, but to his master worker Jesus Christ who created all things. It is the same 'us' when he said 'Let US make man in our image". Whose image, the angels, or our creators?
Your question is, prior to sin, if badness did not exist, how is it that God states that Adam had become like one of them knowing good and bad?
Certainly, Jehovah's act of creation wasn't spontaneous or impulsive. It wasn't as if one day he casually decided, "Let's create a universe teeming with intelligent beings in my image," and poof, it happened. Instead, just as he teaches within the scriptures, he meticulously planned and calculated every aspect. He set the boundaries, established the standards, and implemented the laws that govern our existence. He created the foundation of time and crafted a spiritual structure upon it, and afterwards he extended it to include the physical creation.
As his creations, we only witness the end results—the completed structure of his creation. We weren't present when he deliberated on what was optimal or perfect. We didn't witness when he determined the speed of light to be 182,282 miles per second or when he defined the parameters of time and space within which we dwell. How could he establish these limits without first testing and determining their standards, calculating his expenditures before constructing?
A standard cannot exist without first defining its boundaries or limits. All the laws governing creation have established thresholds that endure for eternity, unwavering and unbreakable. While Jehovah grants us the ability to manipulate these laws, their fundamental principles remain constants for as long as we creation exists.
Just as we have the ability to imagine and contemplate situations within our own mind, most certainly God had the ability to determine these elements of creation, good and bad, within his own existence prior to creation. Indeed, it's undeniable that prior to creation, God established these standards based on the thresholds that we see inherent in his creation. Thus, he clearly understands what is detrimental to it, having fashioned everything that exists alongside his only Son—US.
Last edited:
KingdomLeast
Well-known member
I'll see it for myself when I get to heaven.
BARNABY THE DOG.
Well-known member
Badness, evil, is not primarily an action. It is the result of an intention that is put into action. No action, no crime. Why is Jehovah, exclusively the judge of all? Because it is the heart condition that cannot be hidden from the Grand Creator. Therefore it is undeniable that the understanding of evil, without even putting it into action, can be seen, determined and judged without ever putting it into action. Judas could not possibly have understood the spiritual outcomes of his evil actions. What he did know, was that he could profit from doing it. Therefore not only could he have turned back from so doing, but he could have listened to his heart that would have told him to reason further on the matter. And if he did refer to his heart, that in itself would have alerted his conscience to the fact that what he was planning was wrong. If your conscience alerts you, it is always for a reason. Even a dog has a conscience. Any animal that needs a conscience, has one.
We have a whole battery of spiritual icons to alert our course of action for no other reason than our thinking is contrary. To what, you may well ask, but its substance is common to all mankind.It can only have been created. It is not a natural occurrence. Conscience, guilt, embarrassment, shame, fear, remorse, sorrow, reluctance, confusion, to name but a few. Adam had all these things before he decided to over ride them. How do we know? He blamed Eve. Ask yourself then, is evil the outcome or the thought? Which must come first? If it is the thought, then the evil was recognised by the heart before the act was carried out. And thinking and desiring evil, which is a facet of life itself, a physical choice, can be judged and the person found not worthy without even lifting their hand against another. Evil is simply a planned decision that is contrary to the “way” of Jehovah. So we need not contemplate all eveils and carry them out to know them Or even to instigate evil. We do not even have to touch evil. All we need do is to decide to act contrary to Jehovah’s ”way”. That is the primary way to understand what may be evil. You do not have to do it to know of its existence.
Bk Kevin
Well-known member
Ask yourself this question:
If the Angels didn't have knowledge of good or bad as you had suggested then how was it possible for Satan the devil who was an angel able to commit such Badness by deceiving Adam and Eve?.
The answer is "Satan was obviously aware of good and bad.
With that said I rest my case. Case closed...
And Genesis chapter 3: verse 5 surely proves my point that
Satan was aware of good and bad.
Genesis3:5>Satan said "For God knows that in the very day of YOUR eating from it YOUR eyes are bound to be opened and YOU are bound to be like God,* KNOWING good and bad.”+
This scripture clearly shows that Knowledge to do good or bad had already existed before sin entered the world according to Genesis 3:22-B And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad,.
Genesis3:22 And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad,+ and now in order that he may not put his hand out and actually take [fruit] also from the tree of life+ and eat and live to time indefinite,—”
Last edited:
Cristo
Well-known member
Exactly, it is a creation.
Our creations mirror the intent within us. These creations are manifestations that either reflect good which had always prevailed prior to the creation of sin, or they reflect bad, as there are only two conceivable scenarios. (Please refer to the original post in this thread.)
Sin is the creation of evil.
Perhaps it would be better if I used that term evil instead of bad, as most bibles use that word when describing the tree in the garden as the Tree of Knowledge OF Good and Evil. That term invokes a deeper meaning of what I am trying to get you and others to understand. Evil did not exist prior to Satan lying to Eve, or do you believe it did?
Any creation that goes contrary to Gods purpose is bad/evil. Thus, free will is the ability to choose to create either good or evil.
When Satan allowed his desire to manifest, he created sin, and reflected the motives of his heart. This was the first time in all of history a son of God manifested, or created evil, and was the first instance where free will was exercised to reflect something contrary to Gods purpose.
Barnaby, do you agree with these statements?
Genesis3:22 "And Jehovah God went on to say: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil...”
Are you suggesting then Bk Kevin that evil existed within Gods creation prior to the sin? Your assumption does not reflect what we know of Gods creation in that it is inherently good, nor does it harmonize with what we understand as Gods feelings towards evil. If we allow your assumption within our understanding of creation then we must accept that evil existed within it prior to the sin. This goes completely contrary to what we think about the spiritual realm prior to Satan lying to Eve. I suppose it's possible, as I do not, nor does anybody know, or have knowledge what the situation was like in heaven before the first sin occurred.
Perhaps you should try to understand more clearly what it is I am trying to say before you slam the case closed. It's essential to reconcile our beliefs with the understanding that evil emerged through the creation of sin rather than being inherent within God's creation. How do we do this when the above scripture seems to state otherwise? This contradiction of our understanding of what heaven was like prior to sin means one of two things. Either the scripture is wrong, or our perspective of it.
I have already stated several times that Satan was aware of what bad/evil was prior to the sin. That he fully knew that his decision to create sin was morally debased, and that he was aware it went completely contrary to his nature. Did Satan KNOW these things, YES!
It would be nice if everybody would stop arguing that I am saying otherwise. I think this is now the fourth time I maintain that position.
However, what Satan and all the other angels didn't comprehend was the nature of creating evil. They lacked knowledge of this concept because, as I believe, evil did not exist before the first sin in the context of a creative act. Free will had never been employed to produce something malevolent within creation, making it impossible to possess knowledge of something that so far had not been proven to be possible, to create evil.
The tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represented the first instance where both the creation of good and the creation of bad coexisted, representing the full spectrum of free will as it had never been established prior.
Last edited:
Bk Kevin
Well-known member
James1:
13 When under trial,+ let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed* by his own desire.+ 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin;+ in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.+"But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire."
* Footnote
Or, “caught as by bait.” Lit., “being baited on.”
Example: