God, Satan, Adam and Eve, and origin of evil

[bahman]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

[Age]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge.

If that is what is said then great, this fits in even more and better with the actual and real Truth of things.

The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Not to long ago, in "time", I wrote:
If a person has the correct and proper definitions for the words they are using, PRIOR to using those words, like they KNOW what they are talking about, then this helps them in being better understood and being fully understood

To wit you replied:
I am aware of that and I agree.

Now that you agree with me, and so that we can better understand what it is that you are actually asking, then how about telling us What 'evil'is exactly, so that we or I can then give you the correct or best answer possible?

By the way you just wrote:
It is said that God created Satan with evil nature, so does that not itself answer your question?

If you want to use the words "It is said... " as though those words are true and right, then they must be true and right, and therefore you already have the answer.

[bahman]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge.

If that is what is said then great, this fits in even more and better with the actual and real Truth of things.

The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Not to long ago, in "time", I wrote:
If a person has the correct and proper definitions for the words they are using, PRIOR to using those words, like they KNOW what they are talking about, then this helps them in being better understood and being fully understood

To wit you replied:
I am aware of that and I agree.

The problem is that we cannot have a complete definition of any word including evil. So we need to strive on example.

Now that you agree with me, and so that we can better understand what it is that you are actually asking, then how about telling us What 'evil'is exactly, so that we or I can then give you the correct or best answer possible?

We all know what evil is as we all know what father is. I can give you the instance of an evil act as I can give you an example who a father is.

By the way you just wrote:
It is said that God created Satan with evil nature, so does that not itself answer your question?

If you want to use the words "It is said... " as though those words are true and right, then they must be true and right, and therefore you already have the answer.

Yes. I have the answer. God is responsible for creating evil nature in Satan. So God is the origin of evil. Whether it is right or wrong is the subject of another thread.

[Age]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge.

If that is what is said then great, this fits in even more and better with the actual and real Truth of things.

The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Not to long ago, in "time", I wrote:
If a person has the correct and proper definitions for the words they are using, PRIOR to using those words, like they KNOW what they are talking about, then this helps them in being better understood and being fully understood

To wit you replied:
I am aware of that and I agree.

The problem is that we cannot have a complete definition of any word including evil. So we need to strive on example.

Now that you agree with me, and so that we can better understand what it is that you are actually asking, then how about telling us What 'evil'is exactly, so that we or I can then give you the correct or best answer possible?

We all know what evil is as we all know what father is. I can give you the instance of an evil act as I can give you an example who a father is.

By the way you just wrote:
It is said that God created Satan with evil nature, so does that not itself answer your question?

If you want to use the words "It is said... " as though those words are true and right, then they must be true and right, and therefore you already have the answer.

Yes. I have the answer. God is responsible for creating evil nature in Satan. So God is the origin of evil. Whether it is right or wrong is the subject of another thread.

I will explain EVERY thing to you later on.

At the moment, of when this is written, you are just to far behind to understand now.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I will explain EVERY thing to you later on.
At the moment, of when this is written, you are just to far behind to understand now.

As usual you are off topic.

What Bahman presented is very logical and clear;

• It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and
  Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride.
  Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge.
  
  The question is who is the origin of Evil?

The above is clearly confined to the Biblical sense.
It is logically clear from the above, God is the origin of evil [clue from 'pride].
This is a critical point and a 'slap' for theists to consider when they accused disbelievers of being evil [as per their definition].

Bahman has given an example of what he meant by 'evil' i.e. pride.
If you have common intellectual sense, you should be able to generate the approximate of what is evil from 'pride' in relations to the various sins of evil listed in the Bible.
The only contention you can argue in the above is 'pride' is not evil in the Biblical sense, which of course is not true.

It is also obvious the whole argument is confined within the Biblical and Abrahamic perspective only and it cannot be applied to the secular or other religions.

If you want to introduce [gate crash] your own definition of evil here, then you are guilty of going off topic, i.e. an infraction of the rules of this forum.

If you insist on your own definition of 'evil' then, start your own thread and present an argument for others to agree or disagree.

Your above modus operandi is the same with most your responses to my posts.

[Age]

I will explain EVERY thing to you later on.
At the moment, of when this is written, you are just to far behind to understand now.

As usual you are off topic.

What Bahman presented is very logical and clear;

• It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and
  Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride.
  Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge.
  
  The question is who is the origin of Evil?

If what "bahman" wrote is so very logical and clear, to you, then WHY are you asking this question now?

"bahman" wrote;
I have the answer. God is responsible for creating evil nature in Satan. So God is the origin of evil. Whether it is right or wrong is the subject of another thread.

Can you NOT clearly SEE that the answer to your question has ALREADY been given?

The above is clearly confined to the Biblical sense.
It is logically clear from the above, God is the origin of evil [clue from 'pride].

But it is NOT logically clear, from the above, to me, that God is the origin of evil. You have told me that God is an impossibility to be real.

Can it be both; There being NO God, but God creating things?

What is clear to me is that "bahman" wrote some sort of answer down. What is NOT logically clear is if that answer is even close to being correct or not. Because, like you, "baham" has a lot of trouble and difficulty, clarifying questions, defining the words used, and explaining what they are actually saying and meaning.

For example, What is this 'God' thingy EXACTLY, which you two go about?

This is a critical point and a 'slap' for theists to consider when they accused disbelievers of being evil [as per their definition].

If you say so.

Bahman has given an example of what he meant by 'evil' i.e. pride.
If you have common intellectual sense,

Do NOT ever be so degrading to me, and ask me if I have "common intellectual sense", like 'you', adult human beings, do.

Just to make it VERY CLEAR; I certainly do NOT have "common intellectual sense" like 'you' do.

you should be able to generate the approximate of what is evil from 'pride' in relations to the various sins of evil listed in the Bible.
The only contention you can argue in the above is 'pride' is not evil in the Biblical sense, which of course is not true.

It is also obvious the whole argument is confined within the Biblical and Abrahamic perspective only and it cannot be applied to the secular or other religions.

If you want to introduce [gate crash] your own definition of evil here, then you are guilty of going off topic, i.e. an infraction of the rules of this forum.

If you insist on your own definition of 'evil' then, start your own thread and present an argument for others to agree or disagree.

Your above modus operandi is the same with most your responses to my posts.

Is it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above is clearly confined to the Biblical sense.
It is logically clear from the above, God is the origin of evil [clue from 'pride].

But it is NOT logically clear, from the above, to me, that God is the origin of evil. You have told me that God is an impossibility to be real.

Can it be both; There being NO God, but God creating things?

What is clear to me is that "bahman" wrote some sort of answer down. What is NOT logically clear is if that answer is even close to being correct or not. Because, like you, "baham" has a lot of trouble and difficulty, clarifying questions, defining the words used, and explaining what they are actually saying and meaning.

For example, What is this 'God' thingy EXACTLY, which you two go about?

Are you a certified autistic?
Autistic people normally suffer from the deficiency in the Theory of Mind.
https://www.spectrumnews.org/wiki/theory-of-mind/

I wrote Bahman's argument and question are with reference to the Biblical context and their respective believers only, i.e. Christians or Jews.
If a Jew or Christian insist his God is absolutely good, then we can use that argument to counter their claim their God is good.

It has nothing to do with my personal definition of God.
If Christians insist their God is real and everyone must study creationism, then I will argue God is impossible to be real.
Where Muslims argued their God [Allah] is real and had delivered commands to kill non-Muslims [me and others] then I will argue Allah is impossible to be real, thus they don't have any divine grounds to kill me and others.

[Age]

The above is clearly confined to the Biblical sense.
It is logically clear from the above, God is the origin of evil [clue from 'pride].

But it is NOT logically clear, from the above, to me, that God is the origin of evil. You have told me that God is an impossibility to be real.

Can it be both; There being NO God, but God creating things?

What is clear to me is that "bahman" wrote some sort of answer down. What is NOT logically clear is if that answer is even close to being correct or not. Because, like you, "baham" has a lot of trouble and difficulty, clarifying questions, defining the words used, and explaining what they are actually saying and meaning.

For example, What is this 'God' thingy EXACTLY, which you two go about?

Are you a certified autistic?

Yes. Were you NOT already aware of this fact?

Autistic people normally suffer from the deficiency in the Theory of Mind.
https://www.spectrumnews.org/wiki/theory-of-mind/

Is this True?

I wrote Bahman's argument and question are with reference to the Biblical context and their respective believers only, i.e. Christians or Jews.

Are you sure that this is exactly what you wrote down? Or is it just more like an interpretation only, of what you actually wrote down?

If a Jew or Christian insist his God is absolutely good, then we can use that argument to counter their claim their God is good.

But how can you counter it? God is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real anway, correct?

If this is correct, then you could just prove and SHOW it to people.

So WHY do you not just do that?

It has nothing to do with my personal definition of God.
If Christians insist their God is real and everyone must study creationism, then I will argue God is impossible to be real.

Okay.

And you insist your God is an impossibility to be real, then some will argue God is real.

Where Muslims argued their God [Allah] is real and had delivered commands to kill non-Muslims [me and others] then I will argue Allah is impossible to be real, thus they don't have any divine grounds to kill me and others.

But they CERTAINLY do have the grounds to kill ALL people of 'your' ilk. This is a FACT that you keep MISSING and NOT understanding.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If a Jew or Christian insist his God is absolutely good, then we can use that argument to counter their claim their God is good.

But how can you counter it? God is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real anway, correct?

If this is correct, then you could just prove and SHOW it to people.

So WHY do you not just do that?

This is definitely a response for an autistic.
You should go for an assessment.

In the above case, I don't have to rely on my argument which is more complex and unnecessary in this case.
Bahman's argument is sufficient to counter that claim.

It has nothing to do with my personal definition of God.
If Christians insist their God is real and everyone must study creationism, then I will argue God is impossible to be real.

Okay.
And you insist your God is an impossibility to be real, then some will argue God is real.

My argument is very logical and rational against theist reliance on groundless faith.
Obviously there will be psychological resistance and I will do my best to get the message across.
Note I have stated, what I have is a model but it is not likely to be successful immediately based purely on argument. I will take time to get result if we start now.

Where Muslims argued their God [Allah] is real and had delivered commands to kill non-Muslims [me and others] then I will argue Allah is impossible to be real, thus they don't have any divine grounds to kill me and others.

But they CERTAINLY do have the grounds to kill ALL people of 'your' ilk. This is a FACT that you keep MISSING and NOT understanding.

Again, you are missing the point.

At present to Muslims, what is Islam is based on the ideology from a real God.
If God is proven to be impossibility to be real, thus no real God,
then, there will be no Islam and no Muslims.
If there is no Islam and no Muslim, there will be no one who will kill in the name of Islam.
The objective it to get the message across and wean off Islam in the future, thus no more Muslims on Earth, then no one will have any Islamic grounds to kill anyone.

In this case, where is the fact and Ground you are insisting on.

For example there is no more official Nazism.
Thus is impossible for any one to kill in the name of Nazism.

[attofishpi]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Hi bahman
Do you believe these things literally - or as a metaphor?

[bahman]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Hi bahman
Do you believe these things literally - or as a metaphor?

I consider these things to be literal unless otherwise is declared somewhere in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. People used to believe that creation is done in seven days. People nowadays call this metaphor because they cannot fit what is stated in the Bible to what they know now yet they cannot say that they are a metaphor of what. That is a way to escape from the truth in my opinion.

[attofishpi]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Hi bahman
Do you believe these things literally - or as a metaphor?

I consider these things to be literal unless otherwise is declared somewhere in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God.

Oh! Did God write the Bible?

[Age]

If a Jew or Christian insist his God is absolutely good, then we can use that argument to counter their claim their God is good.

But how can you counter it? God is an IMPOSSIBILITY to be real anway, correct?

If this is correct, then you could just prove and SHOW it to people.

So WHY do you not just do that?

This is definitely a response for an autistic.
You should go for an assessment.

Do you actually read the words I write? You sure do not come across as though you do. For example, you wrote;
Are you a certified autistic?

To wit I replied;
Yes. Were you NOT already aware of this fact?

But then you respond to this very post where I said that by telling me;
I should go for an autistic assessment.

Seriously?

Why SHOULD I go for autistic assessment when I have just answered your OWN question about being certified autistic and I told you that I am already a certified autistic?

I was under the impression that you were NOT reading the words I wrote down here. You have now just proved it to be TRUE.

In the above case, I don't have to rely on my argument which is more complex and unnecessary in this case.
Bahman's argument is sufficient to counter that claim.

It has nothing to do with my personal definition of God.
If Christians insist their God is real and everyone must study creationism, then I will argue God is impossible to be real.

Okay.
And you insist your God is an impossibility to be real, then some will argue God is real.

My argument is very logical and rational against theist reliance on groundless faith.
Obviously there will be psychological resistance and I will do my best to get the message across.
Note I have stated, what I have is a model but it is not likely to be successful immediately based purely on argument. I will take time to get result if we start now.

Note, some see you as the autistic, delusional, and real schizo one.

Where Muslims argued their God [Allah] is real and had delivered commands to kill non-Muslims [me and others] then I will argue Allah is impossible to be real, thus they don't have any divine grounds to kill me and others.

But they CERTAINLY do have the grounds to kill ALL people of 'your' ilk. This is a FACT that you keep MISSING and NOT understanding.

Again, you are missing the point.

Lol.

At present to Muslims, what is Islam is based on the ideology from a real God.
If God is proven to be impossibility to be real, thus no real God,
then, there will be no Islam and no Muslims.
If there is no Islam and no Muslim, there will be no one who will kill in the name of Islam.
The objective it to get the message across and wean off Islam in the future, thus no more Muslims on Earth, then no one will have any Islamic grounds to kill anyone.

In this case, where is the fact and Ground you are insisting on.

For example there is no more official Nazism.
Thus is impossible for any one to kill in the name of Nazism.

But God says to kill ALL of 'you', non believers, which ALL of 'you', human beings, have misinterpreted, and thus are ALL completely 'missing the mark' of.

[Age]

It is said that God created Satan with evil nature (Satan could feel pride) and Satan was first who fell in the sin of pride. Satan then fooled Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The question is who is the origin of Evil?

Hi bahman
Do you believe these things literally - or as a metaphor?

I consider these things to be literal unless otherwise is declared somewhere in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. People used to believe that creation is done in seven days. People nowadays call this metaphor because they cannot fit what is stated in the Bible to what they know now yet they cannot say that they are a metaphor of what. That is a way to escape from the truth in my opinion.

Escape from what 'truth'?

To you, is it at all possible that what has been written down and recorded, through human beings and their hands, was somewhat misinterpreted, and/or what has been translated many times over could have been misinterpreted anywhere along that line?

Have you heard of the 'chinese whispers' or the 'telephone' game, and the message that is actually told and shown through playing it?

[bahman]

Hi bahman
Do you believe these things literally - or as a metaphor?

I consider these things to be literal unless otherwise is declared somewhere in the Bible. The Bible is the word of God.

Oh! Did God write the Bible?

Of course no, but people believe that the Bible is what God said.