Cain was actually the Serpent's son.

Author: RationalMadman

Posts

Total: 43
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
There is no sensible way to believe the mainstream storyline of Adam being the biological father of Cain. I believe that the idea is that Cain was made from God's alter ego Satan (I don't believe that Lucifer is Satan or that he ever becomes it, I believe that Lucifer is Jesus in the NT and that God of the OT is, or directly controls, Satan throughout). The Serpent was to produce the most evil, masculine being in the entire storyline; Cain, who would reflect everything sinister and brutal in humanity, whereas Abel would represent a more feminist type of guy, who respectd women and people in general holding an honest reputation about himself.

There is absolutely no explanation of what the 'swallowing of the apple' is metaphor for, are you literally telling me that an apple was that tempting? I think the apple was having sex with the serpent of the sexy badboy Satan.
#2
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
So when you don't believe something, you choose instead to believe in what you can imagine?

Topic's author
#3
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
Adam was cuckolded by the serpent, he gave in for a while, but not as much or as Eve did. The reason the apple is stuck in his throat is that it symbolizes that he BECAME A MAN by refusing to keep giving into his dominant male competitor. Unfortunately, it is obvious from the personality of Cain, that Adam was cuckolded in a true sense (the child wasn't his). Cuckolding is ironic as the name means that the one cucked grows horns (that's where the term horny comes from, you want sex but aren't getting it), the reason it's ironic is that it was the devil who cuckolded him (who I believe is an alter ego of God but that's for another debate).
#4
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@RationalMadman
I would recommend that you rather learn from the church about these things, but I don't get the impression that you are willing to consider that option at this time. Of course, my impression could be wrong.
Topic's author
#5
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Mopac
Let me just add one more thing, who was the male version of Lilith? Adam was the 'good guy' right? Eve was the 'good woman' right? Lilith was the 'evil woman' and what was her male counterpart?
#6
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Adam was cuckolded by the serpent, 

You may have something there in that the Sumerians ( from where the patriarch  Abraham originated) tell us that  the lord Ea/Enki was the "serpent lord". 

There is also the  passage in the scripture that clearly states that Able had a different father to that of Cain. Eve clearly states that Able was a product of the Lord and Eve.

“And Adam knew [had sexual intercourse with] Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain”, Genesis 4:1 KJV.


So the baby Cain is born of a union of Adam and Eve. But then it goes on to say;

“And [then Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel”.


#7
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
The truly sad part about all this is the fact that Able was only around 120 years old when he was murdered.  

Topic's author
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
You know some of the secrets, I hope you unlock more as you learn. I know you 'loathe' Islam but do not turn to it with that attitude, understand that it is Lucifer manifesting and suddenly the storyline makes much, much more sense, from OT to Qur'an.
#9
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
I know you 'loathe' Islam but do not turn to it with that attitude,

I do loath Islam.  What has my feelings towards Islam to do with the topic here in this thread?  Why bring that up here in your own thread with the risk of derailing what could be an interesting thread about the OT creation story?

but do not turn to it with that attitude,

Turn to what?

with that attitude,

What attitude?
It would be more sensible and productive to comment on what I have responded or simply do not comment at all on what I have wrote. i.e stick to the subject matter of YOUR OWN thread and not what my attitude to Islam is. 
Topic's author
#10
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
This is entirely related, because is it against the serpent that Allah's greatest grudge is.
#11
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,616
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
It would be more sensible and productive to comment on what I have responded or simply do not comment at all on what I have wrote. i.e stick to the subject matter of YOUR OWN thread and not what my attitude to Islam is. 

but do not turn to it with that attitude,

Turn to what?

with that attitude,

What attitude?

Topic's author
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
Zoomorphic manifestation[edit]
Jinn are assumed to be able to appear in shape of various animals such as scorpions, cats, owls and onagers. The dog is also often related to jinn, especially black dogs. However piebald dogs are rather identified with hinn. Associations between dogs and jinn prevailed in Arabic-literature, but lost its meaning in Persian scriptures.[87] Serpents are the animals most associated with jinn. Islamic traditions knows many narratitions concerning a serpent who was actually a jinni.[88] However (except for the 'udhrut from Yemeni folklore) the jinn can not appear in form of wolves. The wolf is thought of as the natural predator of the jinn, who contrasts the jinn by his noble character and disables them to vanish.[89][90]

Topic's author
#13
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@David
@Stephen
@Vader
@Mopac
@A-R-O-S-E
The father of Cain was NOT Adam! Nowhere in Adam's geneology is Cain listed, although Cain is a son of Eve. The father of Cain was either Satan himself or a person or race that was inspired by Satan to do wrong by inter-marrying with the sons of God. The serpent was called a serpent because he spoke with a hiss, or whisper and was very devious and persuasive. It was unlikely to be Satan himself, just like the so-called nephilim are not literally half angels.


(You misquoted Genesis in an article on the Nephilim: "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:4

Genesis ACTUALLY says: "There were GIANTS in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Giants simply means tyrants, or powerful ruthless leaders/kings. Look it up in the Hebrew language (Strongs Exhaustive Corcordance of the Bible).
We are the sons of God as any minister would teach in church when reading from the New Testament.

However, it is possible that the daughters of men where the daughters of Cain who we were forbidden from mixing with because the resultant children would be ruthless evil tyrants - Giants ! Read the Genesis quote above again to see if this makes sense.

However many people still cant explain why it was forbidden to inter-mary with the daugters of Cain. Unfortunately for those who favour racial equality, they will not like my answer, but my answer is the only one makes any sence.

Throughout the Old and New Testaments - especially the New - tree's are seen as people or races of people and fruit are the deeds of people and sometimes their offspring as well which are also sometimes referred to as seed. Good trees produce good fruit, and bad trees produce bad or no fruit. The story of Eden is a similiar parable and the forbidden fruit is also symbolic of a race that you were not allowed to inter-breed with. For centuries Christians have reluctedly accepted their ministers telling them that Adam and Eve sinned by eating the wrong fruit. Where is this fruit today. Can you buy it in any supermarket or pick it from any tree ? Do you know of any fruit that is poisonous to eat ? My point exactly a very unlikely explanation of Eden indeed !

Satan inspired someone to speak in a whisper LIKE a serpent and convince Eve to eat of his fruit and it was definitely sexual in nature. This does not mean all men of this race that tricked Eve were evil, it just means one of them sinned - this was a black man and the first example in the Bible that we get of inter-racial marriage. Is is so hard to believe that there was a specific reason God created the races differently and intended them to remain different ? If this was not a sexual incident then why did Eve awake naked afterwards. Is it all starting to make sense yet ?

We learn that Eve also convinced Adam to join her.
Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden...
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, YE (the "serpent") SHALL NOT EAT OF IT shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die....
Genesis 3:6 And 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.

Eve's body was the fruit that she shared with the "serpent" like man who whispered to her and which she shared with Adam.

She produced twins, but one was mixed genetically (Cain of the "serpent") and the other was the pure line of Abel. But was we know with world history being filled with racial wars and agressors on both sides there is bound to confusion and jealously in mixed children of inter-racial mariages. This is why, deep down, Cain hated Abel and slew him - his own (half brother). This is why Seth was born, to replace Abel and continue the pure line between Adam and Eve.

#14
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
There is no sensible way to believe the mainstream storyline of Adam being the biological father of Cain. I believe that the idea is that Cain was made from God's alter ego Satan (I don't believe that Lucifer is Satan or that he ever becomes it, I believe that Lucifer is Jesus in the NT and that God of the OT is, or directly controls, Satan throughout). The Serpent was to produce the most evil, masculine being in the entire storyline; Cain, who would reflect everything sinister and brutal in humanity, whereas Abel would represent a more feminist type of guy, who respectd women and people in general holding an honest reputation about himself.

There is absolutely no explanation of what the 'swallowing of the apple' is metaphor for, are you literally telling me that an apple was that tempting? I think the apple was having sex with the serpent of the sexy badboy Satan.
Adam is the "symbolic" father of Cain: it follows from the original sin onward.

Adam: blames woman/god for his own failing to adhere to the warning of not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil
Eve: blames serpent for not adhering to the warning of not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (ie. "believe" to know it)
Cain: elaboration of blaming/scapegoating: tilling from ones own soil and projecting it onto ones own adversary (ie. brother) as if the fault is owing to another and not to the self. Clinically this is psychological projection: blaming/accusing others of ones own 'state'. This is technically what "religion" is: scapegoating of the sins of the self onto others (ie. Jesus) and/or projecting the iniquities of ones own house (ie. abusing women) onto their adversaries (ie. the West). It is all original sin blaming projecting scapegoating ad infinitum. This is a root of evil: to accuse another of what one is themselves guilty of. It is what Adam did: blame/accuse.

The metaphor of the apple is not complicated: it is just too much for some "believers" to swallow.

2- (any/all) <-* infinite/boundlessness
1- KNOW <-* TREE OF LIVING
0- I am (willing to) <-* (un)conscious being
4- BELIEVE <-* required by satan in order for any "believer" to "believe" evil is good
3- *not to*  <-* avoid so-called satan

wherein:
0-1-2-3-4 = I am willing to KNOW any/all *not to* BELIEVE...
0-4-3-2-1 = I am willing to BELIEVE any/all *not to* KNOW...
(notice the backwards/forwards inversion - this inversion is needed to invert evil/good via BELIEF)

Thus it takes a "believer" to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:

A: We are good, B is evil!
B: NO, WE are good, A is evil!
(a third option exists unknown to either A/B):
C: Both A and B are ignorantly eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

A/B will "surely die" according to their own eating/entanglement/polarization.
C can choose not to become entangled at all "knowing" it takes a "believer" to ever "believe" evil is good.

In the same way it takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good,
it takes the same "believer" to "believe":
i. War is Peace
ii. Infidelity is Findelity
iii. Abuse is Mercy
iv. Man is entitled to more than one woman contrary to the pre-fall Edenic 'state' of 1:1
v. A (dead) polygamous pedophile infidel man is the greatest model for all of humanity
etc. etc.

And there is all of your "evil": wrapped up in "belief"-in-and-of-itself.
There is another tree entirely: knowing any/all *not* to "believe".

#15
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
And there is all of your " evil "  oh.
Oh.
You just beat me to it. 
Yeah, so ummmmmm ,What ( gag nos the agnos ) said.



#16
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Some TIPS (truth in plain sight):

*if* the original sin of man is related to his blaming the woman for his own iniquity, do we see this manifest in the real world?

What do the "believing" women wear as a symbol of so-called "modesty"?
Do men who view women as "whores" sexually abuse/rape women "believing" them to be such anyways (ie. as a justification for their raping them)?
Is the hijab/niqab a product of the sexual degeneracy of men viz. blaming them for the men being unable to control themselves?
Are the women of these religions actually wearing the iniquity of the men?

"I have never seen anyone suffer like the believing woman."
-A'isha, "favorite" wife of the "believed"-himself-to-be-the-final-messenger-of-god Muhammad

There is much more truth in her words than the entirety of the Qur'an, which is evolved from Syriac (not Arabic) Christian (not Islamic) strophic hymns and suffered the same man-handling (ie. changes, modifications, addition(s) of diacritics etc.) as the Torah before it (ie. history certainly repeats itself). All of this "belief"-based ignorance at the hands of "believers" who are bound to "believe" and "believe" and "believe"...

...eating from the very tree they were first instructed not to. So they blame the woman. So she blames the serpent, and Cain blames whoever he hates etc. and on and on and on. "Belief"-based ignorance will be the death of humanity if/whenever that comes.

Now see for example, the House of Islam, whine and squeal over criticisms of their idol they *absolutely worship* for a living: a dead man, what he said, what he did, how he lived, how he prayed etc. and their many books of his sayings and actions. They worship a man while "believing" they are *not* worshiping a man - all of this unknowing Allah is Muhammad('s lust for women/conquest). So they use his image and likeness to justify their own: to obey Muhammad is to obey Allah (despite their "belief" they do not associate partners with Allah(?)). It is all "belief"-based ignorant brain rot that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions, and all the House of Islam can do is point fingers, blame, scapegoat etc. while, in reality, the idol of Islam Muhammad establishes a global precedent for pedophilia/war on the planet. The greatest example for all of humanity is a pedophile warlord man, and the "believing" Muhammadans claim they do not worship this man despite their willingness to *spill blood* over ridicule of the man. Islam is the most idolatrous institution on the planet (beyond even Christianity): guilty of crimes against humanity while being the real root(s) of Nazism/fascism, socialism and Liberalism (all mental disorders stemming from Islam itself). Islam has absolutely no conscious knowledge of its own "belief"-based ignorance and can only blame others, suppress, silence, slander etc. all qualities they accuse the Jew of, mind you. Who are they to speak ill of the Jew, being their ancestors? Like, hello? Abraham "Ibrahim" right? Moses "Musa" right? Islam is not an Abrahamic religion: it is an Abrahamic heresy. That is the example of how "belief" is the conduit of any/all potential "evil" (without the need to define it).

It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good. Such are the "believers" who "believe" they are *not* eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thereby "believing" evil is good. They have absolutely no knowledge (the negation of "belief") nor idea (use of conscience), of what they do: they just eat, and eat, and eat "believing" to know good and evil. Thus, they become upside-down over time recognizing not the evil of themselves. This is Muhammad, and the reason A'isha spoke the words she spoke: the man was ignorant of himself militarily "believing" himself to be something he was not. Hundreds of millions are dead due to that. Hitler did something similar against Jews.

When any problem ignorantly "believes" itself to be a solution,
it is a problem-in-and-of-itself begging for perpetual conflict.
Topic's author
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Good to know you believe everything you typed, blaming Muslims, Christians and characters in books you think don't exist for the demise of the world's morality. I'm glad to know you believe so strongly in not believing.

#18
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@RationalMadman
There is no sensible way to believe the mainstream storyline of Adam being the biological father of Cain. I believe that the idea is that Cain was made from God's alter ego Satan (I don't believe that Lucifer is Satan or that he ever becomes it, I believe that Lucifer is Jesus in the NT and that God of the OT is, or directly controls, Satan throughout). The Serpent was to produce the most evil, masculine being in the entire storyline; Cain, who would reflect everything sinister and brutal in humanity, whereas Abel would represent a more feminist type of guy, who respectd women and people in general holding an honest reputation about himself.

There is absolutely no explanation of what the 'swallowing of the apple' is metaphor for, are you literally telling me that an apple was that tempting? I think the apple was having sex with the serpent of the sexy badboy Satan.

Your post is full of eisegesis. In other words, you supply your own interpretation that is CONTRARY to the text of Scripture.

The text nowhere says that Cain was made from Satan, nowhere says that Lucifer is Jesus, nowhere says that Abel would represent a "more feminist type of guy" or nowhere says that the fruit was an apple, or finally, that this fictitious apple was symbolic of having sex with the serpent or Satan. Your whole post is totally preposterous, IMO. 
#19
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
-->
@RationalMadman
Good to know you believe everything you typed, blaming Muslims, Christians and characters in books you think don't exist for the demise of the world's morality. I'm glad to know you believe so strongly in not believing.
It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them). Any all-knowing god would certainly know any/all *not* to "believe".

People who "believe" while having no conscious knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to their "belief" are necessarily ignorant. That is what defines ignorance: lack of knowledge. If a person just "believes" and "believes" ongoing, it is the same as satan:

shin - expression of being (ie. as a conjunction of psychology/emotion/action)
tet - bound (ie. entangled)
nun (final) - ongoing (ie. indefinite) state

...the expression of being bound in an ongoing (indefinite) state...
Knowledge serves to know what *not* to "believe" such to avoid it, and I know not to "believe" either the Bible (the first five books of which are the Torah, themselves derivative of four independent source authors J, E, P, and D with a 5th R(edactor)) nor the Qur'an (evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns) are the perfect words of any inspired creator. At best, if they ever were, there is a needed emphasis on were for certainly no longer being such. If one looks closely, one finds history repeats itself between the two: addition of diacritical markings, redactions and modifications etc. Mecca did not even exist in the time of Muhammad: all mosques built up until ~730 CE had qiblas (direction of prayer) facing Petra in South Jordan, which *did* exist at the time of Muhammad and served as a central trade hub. Islam began in Petra, not Mecca, and thus Muhammad would not have ever faced "Mecca" to pray. It is all "belief"-based ignorance that has costed the lives of hundreds of millions.

Ps. the Christians/Muslims are the first victims of their own ideology.

#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
It's all a metaphor for the hypocrisy of veganism.
#21
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Good to know you believe everything you typed, blaming Muslims, Christians and characters in books you think don't exist for the demise of the world's morality. I'm glad to know you believe so strongly in not believing.
It takes a "believer" to "believe" evil is good (without the need to define them). Any all-knowing god would certainly know any/all *not* to "believe".
Again, you have gone off on a tangent from the original statement (emboldened). Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims? Is your belief (only knowledge if it can be verified and justified as true) based on the verification of facts as they really are (is it a true account)? Only if you can demonstrate this with certainty (truth is a certainty - it expresses what is, it cannot be false), will I grant you know it as true?

First, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"


People who "believe" while having no conscious knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to their "belief" are necessarily ignorant. That is what defines ignorance: lack of knowledge. If a person just "believes" and "believes" ongoing, it is the same as satan:
How can you have knowledge based on uncertainty? To know is to believe that which is true to what is. As I mentioned in your other post (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2896/debating-to-undermine-any-all-belief?page=1&post_number=20), knowledge is a justifiable true belief.

Knowledge = True Belief.

Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You have to start by believing something (first presuppositions; first proposition, the building block everything else is connected, or the chain of facts that the starting belief rests upon). Since you don't know how everything is connected in all its details you must start from a belief and work from that core supposition. Can you justify your belief? If so, then it is knowledge.


...the expression of being bound in an ongoing (indefinite) state...
Knowledge serves to know what *not* to "believe" such to avoid it, and I know not to "believe" either the Bible (the first five books of which are the Torah, themselves derivative of four independent source authors J, E, P, and D with a 5th R(edactor))
Knowledge is a positive belief that is also true to what is the case. You do not generally believe or put your trust in something that you think negatively about.

You, acting as your highest authority (it's so because you know it when in fact you don't) or the ultimate reference point for knowledge, disbelieve the Bible. How well do you understand it? I bet not well and I would like to challenge you on such an assumption. I would hazard that you do not know because you cannot properly connect what is said from your bias and preconceived notions on what it says and its true meaning. 


nor ... are the perfect words of any inspired creator.
Again, God would speak on a different level in communicating with humanity (dumbed down) so that we, even those of lesser intellect, could understand Him (since He, by definition, knows all things). You can't have the same intellectual conversation with a two-year-old that you can with a thirty-year-old. Thus, you have to dumb down the conversation when speaking to the two-year-old (baby talk). 

At best, if they ever were, there is a needed emphasis on were for certainly no longer being such. If one looks closely, one finds history repeats itself between the two: addition of diacritical markings, redactions and modifications etc.
That is because Isalm borrows from the Christian conceptual system of thought, not the other way around. Christianity expands and explains in more detail on the Judaic system of thought to make things clear in that it is a progressive revelation of the same God. It also explains why the Judaic system of worship failed. That reason is that Israel could not live up to the holiness and purity that is God by work or merit-based system in obeying Him (Exodus 24:3, 7). 

God brought some in Israel to the realization that His grace is sufficient for them and since they could not live up to work-based salvation, He not only met the requirements of doing that in Jesus Christ but also provided a better covenant of grace through Jesus, that those who reach out to Him can believe and live by. We, as Christians, live on the merits/works accomplished by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits to save us. 

The OT is a worked based demonstration that continually shows the failing of those who agreed to it to live up to it. 

How can the imperfect live up to the perfect?  Only because of and by His grace and mercy! 


Ps. the Christians/Muslims are the first victims of their own ideology.
Christians are not necessarily victims if they interpret the Bible correctly. That would mean they had a true knowledge in the aspect of teaching or doctrine. Explain how you know your statement is so as opposed to just believing it to be so?

#22
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
my god
#23
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
Again, you have gone off on a tangent from the original statement (emboldened). Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims? Is your belief (only knowledge if it can be verified and justified as true) based on the verification of facts as they really are (is it a true account)? Only if you can demonstrate this with certainty (truth is a certainty - it expresses what is, it cannot be false), will I grant you know it as true?

First, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"
There is no tangent: at best, you/anyone could only ever "believe" I, or any, know what we know. As to whether or not you know what you know, you are your own obstacle to that, not me. I know Christians and Muslims suffer "belief"-based ignorance. I know this because I tried/tested both Christianity and Islam and found them to be certainly ignorant. Again: at best, you can only "believe" me that I know, but I myself know I know. I can't prove something to someone who has no conscious knowledge that they may themselves be subject to "belief"-based ignorance(s) unto which they vehemently cling to. It has to do with idol worship (not "physical objects").

As to your second question: your very asking it demonstrates you are ignorant of the problem-in-and-of-itself:

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

...first, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"

I don't eat from that tree. Those who do, have a relative "evil" and are bound to be in conflict indefinitum. If you know, at best, one could only ever "believe" to know good and evil, the very "believing" to know it causes suffering and death. Say hello to "belief" in any god.

By the way, does it not take a "believer" to "believe":
i. Belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (?)
ii. evil is good (*without the need to define them*)
iii. satan is god

One question.
Who are so willing to believe?


2 (any/all)
1 KNOW
0- I am (willing to)...
4 BELIEVE
3 (*not to*)
Living: I am willing to KNOW (any/all / *not to*) BELIEVE...
Death: I am willing to BELIEVE (any/all / *not to*) KNOW...

Another question.
Would an all-knowing god not KNOW so-called satan *requires* BELIEF-in-and-of-itself?

Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-*tends towards any possible all-knowing god any/all *not* to believe
Belief-in-and-of-itself <-*satan certainly requires belief
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-*believers who believe evil is good cause suffering/death

More:
Is knowledge of ones own ignorance not needed to beget new knowledge *from* the same ignorance(s)?
If so, how can all knowing be belief, if belief is required to (erroneously) believe one is knowing when one is not?
Does it takes a "believer" to "believe" they are themselves *not* ignorant?
Does it thus take a "knowing" to "know" one is themselves ignorant?

What happens if one is ignorant while knowing not they are ignorant?

They are certainly a "believer" and ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims?
No: I know they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves. However, I do not "blame" them: I see them as victims.

That is why if I ever undermine the idolatrous houses of Christianity/Islam, I'd do it from the top-down. The "believers" do not know what tree they eat from.
#24
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2
How can you have knowledge based on uncertainty? To know is to believe that which is true to what is. As I mentioned in your other post (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2896/debating-to-undermine-any-all-belief?page=1&post_number=20), knowledge is a justifiable true belief.

Knowledge = True Belief.

Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You have to start by believing something (first presuppositions; first proposition, the building block everything else is connected, or the chain of facts that the starting belief rests upon). Since you don't know how everything is connected in all its details you must start from a belief and work from that core supposition. Can you justify your belief? If so, then it is knowledge.
As I mentioned in the other post: you have it backwards.
Belief is a subcategory of knowledge.

Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-* knowing any/all *not* to believe (to a certainty)
Belief-in-and-of-itself <-* trying belief for belief-based ignorance(s)
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* no conscious knowledge of ignorance

True Belief = Knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that belief. It is conscious knowledge of ignorance. The conscious justification never pertains to how the "belief" could be "true", but rather "false". That is conscious knowledge of ignorance.

If a personal "believes" something to be "certain" they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.

#25
AGnosticAgnostic
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
AGnosticAgnostic's avatar
AGnosticAgnostic
0
0
2

Knowledge is a positive belief that is also true to what is the case. You do not generally believe or put your trust in something that you think negatively about.

You, acting as your highest authority (it's so because you know it when in fact you don't) or the ultimate reference point for knowledge, disbelieve the Bible. How well do you understand it? I bet not well and I would like to challenge you on such an assumption. I would hazard that you do not know because you cannot properly connect what is said from your bias and preconceived notions on what it says and its true meaning. 
Knowledge is not a positive belief, it is the negation of belief. Belief graduates into knowledge after falsified.

I know the first five books of "Moses" were not authored by Moses, but had four source authors J, E, P, D and a fifth R(edactor). These reflected political divisions viz. Elohim vs. YHWH. Therefor, I know not to "believe" it was delivered to a Hebrew man (in reality probably an Egyptian Akhunatun) and therefor am aware there are many who "believe" the books of Moses to be something they are not.

I don't "disbelieve" the Bible, I learned enough of Hebrew to read it in its original "language". However I know that the Hebrew language is actually derived from a single form viewed from 22 different perspectives, thus the real "language" predates Canaanite-Hebrew, and so I read it accordingly. It is nothing like the "English" translation(s) or even the Hebrew "story". It is more like a book of equations. For example,

Genesis 1:1 is a torus field,
Genesis 1:2 is the 'state' before a stable torus field,
Genesis 1:3 is the three components of a stable torus field
etc. and creation is described from the inside-out, rather than the outside-in as people read it.

B'resh'yis (first word of Genesis) has over 900 ways to read/interpret. It can mean:
In the beginning...(English)
At the head of the summit...(Hebrew)
Son (of/that is) fire (is) over time...(Aramaic)
etc.

Understanding the language prior to the Hebrews "adapting" it eliminates any/all possible bias(es) and allows me to see the problem(s) in Judaism and when/where they first arose. These problems would later compound into Christianity/Islam.

Again, God would speak on a different level in communicating with humanity (dumbed down) so that we, even those of lesser intellect, could understand Him (since He, by definition, knows all things). You can't have the same intellectual conversation with a two-year-old that you can with a thirty-year-old. Thus, you have to dumb down the conversation when speaking to the two-year-old (baby talk). 
Human beings have two ears and one mouth. Abram had to head out of the land of Ur for a reason: if no listeny, no helpy.

That is because Isalm borrows from the Christian conceptual system of thought, not the other way around. Christianity expands and explains in more detail on the Judaic system of thought to make things clear in that it is a progressive revelation of the same God. It also explains why the Judaic system of worship failed. That reason is that Israel could not live up to the holiness and purity that is God by work or merit-based system in obeying Him (Exodus 24:3, 7). 

God brought some in Israel to the realization that His grace is sufficient for them and since they could not live up to work-based salvation, He not only met the requirements of doing that in Jesus Christ but also provided a better covenant of grace through Jesus, that those who reach out to Him can believe and live by. We, as Christians, live on the merits/works accomplished by Jesus Christ, not by our own merits to save us. 

The OT is a worked based demonstration that continually shows the failing of those who agreed to it to live up to it. 

How can the imperfect live up to the perfect?  Only because of and by His grace and mercy! 
It is true Islam "borrows" from Christianity, as well as (mostly) Judaism.

The rest is "belief"-based waffle.

Christians are not necessarily victims if they interpret the Bible correctly. That would mean they had a true knowledge in the aspect of teaching or doctrine. Explain how you know your statement is so as opposed to just believing it to be so?
Some did/do: Christ is certainly not an unreal thing. It is just not a bloody man: it does not come lest by way of knowing the suffering of others (ie. transcending suffering of self) which only comes with knowing the original sin as it relates to blaming/accusing/scapegoating. Had Adam not attempted to blame another for his own fault, so-called evil would not have entered.

The implication of the book of Genesis is each carries in/of their own being, their own iniquities, and with them they remain until acknowledged/reversed. If this is not done consciously, there are laws in/of the cosmos that intervene.

#26
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
Again, you have gone off on a tangent from the original statement (emboldened). Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims? Is your belief (only knowledge if it can be verified and justified as true) based on the verification of facts as they really are (is it a true account)? Only if you can demonstrate this with certainty (truth is a certainty - it expresses what is, it cannot be false), will I grant you know it as true?

First, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"
There is no tangent: at best, you/anyone could only ever "believe" I, or any, know what we know.
First, I request you type my name in the "Receivers" box or else I do not get a notification that someone has replied to my posts.



As to whether or not you know what you know, you are your own obstacle to that, not me. I know Christians and Muslims suffer "belief"-based ignorance.

I know this because I tried/tested both Christianity and Islam and found them to be certainly ignorant.
That is fallacious reasoning. There are many logical fallacies associated with these two statements. I'll list just a couple. 



It is a one-sided assessment with you as the final arbiter because you are stacking the deck and special pleading (https://www.thoughtco.com/stacking-the-deck-logical-fallacy-1692133).

It is just an assertion based on your belief and you have not demonstrated otherwise.


Again: at best, you can only "believe" me that I know, but I myself know I know. I can't prove something to someone who has no conscious knowledge that they may themselves be subject to "belief"-based ignorance(s) unto which they vehemently cling to. It has to do with idol worship (not "physical objects").
Again, all knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You, as a human being, have to start with a belief, with something you have to trust, to form other beliefs. Beliefs work on a web of other beliefs starting with a core belief. The question is whether the core belief is a justifiably true belief.

You can't know unless you first believe. 

When you say, "I know I know," not everything you think you know is known by you. If what you BELIEVE you know is proven to be false you did not really know it. It was a false belief. 

As to your second question: your very asking it demonstrates you are ignorant of the problem-in-and-of-itself:

GENESIS 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

...first, what is your standard or ultimate measure in qualifying what is "good?"

I don't eat from that tree.
Adam represent humanity (the federal head) in his choice to eat. It had implications for the rest of us too. He opened himself up to doubting God and did. Thus, relativism was born. He no longer relied on a fixed standard for knowledge and truth. His rejection of what God said was good and what God forbade resulted in Adam's descendants also looking at things from a relativistic and subjective standpoint, apart from God. God no longer "walked" and communed in close relationship with Adam. Adam was barred from God's intimate and close presence.  

Death (which in this case in the Garden) was not physical in nature but a spiritual alienation or death/alienation from the presence of God. Adam died to that relationship on that day. Spiritual death or a close relationship was passed onto humanity that very day and Adam and Eve were not permitted to partake of the tree of life either and live forever physically. 


Those who do, have a relative "evil" and are bound to be in conflict indefinitum. If you know, at best, one could only ever "believe" to know good and evil, the very "believing" to know it causes suffering and death. Say hello to "belief" in any god.
Again, Adam represented humanity so you are implicated in the judgment. You, like him, no longer enjoy that close relationship (that "walking" in the Garden with God). To once again experience that relationship Jesus told us we must be born again, restored to a right relationship with God

God permitted Adam free choice that was not influenced by other things. He told Adam that WHEN he ate the fruit, he would die. Adam died to God, in a close spiritual relationship, when he ate. On that day Adam knew the difference between good and evil. He had experienced God. Before that point of eating, Adam only experienced the goodness of God. 

Knowledge is justified true belief. When Adam ate he knew the difference between good and evil. His belief corresponded to what is the case. He no longer enjoyed that close fellowship with God after that point in time.   


By the way, does it not take a "believer" to "believe":
Yes, and you are a believer. You just don't happen to believe the same things I do. So, the question is whether your belief-system is a justified true belief (or knowledge) or a false belief system.
#27
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
I will try to follow your reasoning. 

i. Belief-in-and-of-itself is a virtue (?)
No, it has to be a true belief based on what is the "good" to be virtuous. Virtue implies good.

ii. evil is good (*without the need to define them*)
No, evil is evil. It has its own identity and that identity is not good. Calling evil good contradicts the law of identity. It does not make sense. 

Just because you can think something does not necessarily make it so. You have to believe what is true before your view corresponds to the truth.

iii. satan is god
No, he is "a god." He is someone who people put in the place of God. There is only one true and living God and Satan is not Him.


One question.
Who are so willing to believe?


2 (any/all)
1 KNOW
0- I am (willing to)...
4 BELIEVE
3 (*not to*)
Living: I am willing to KNOW (any/all / *not to*) BELIEVE...
Death: I am willing to BELIEVE (any/all / *not to*) KNOW...
How can you know unless 1) you believe, 2) that belief corresponds to what is true.

If your belief does not correspond to what actually is the case your belief is not knowledge. It is false. Knowledge is that which is the case. 


Another question.
Would an all-knowing god not KNOW so-called satan *requires* BELIEF-in-and-of-itself?
God is all-knowing. He never started with a proposition. He always knew/knows all things, thus, God is not like humans in this sense. We have a beginning. We have a learning curve. When we know the truth we know as God knows a particular thing, but there again, we only know in part, not all the interconnections to our belief or we too would be omniscient. 


Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-*tends towards any possible all-knowing god any/all *not* to believe
Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. Knowledge is a true belief. 

Belief-in-and-of-itself <-*satan certainly requires belief
Satan is not worthy of belief. Some do believe because they believe the wrong over the right, the evil over the good, the darkness over the light. 

Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-*believers who believe evil is good cause suffering/death
True. The question is how you arrive at the "good" without God? Why is what you believe good? How do you KNOW?


More:
Is knowledge of ones own ignorance not needed to beget new knowledge *from* the same ignorance(s)?
Any belief has to start with some proposition, presupposing something (the core belief) to believe something else. Worldviews are webs of belief. They build on particular starting points. If the starting points are sound/true, the believes are knowledgeable of what is the case. If the belief is true it will have commonality with truth, such as thinking the laws of logic are needed to make sense of anything. Such thoughts are self-evident or necessary truths to know or make sense of anything else. They require that you believe them or else you refute yourself. You have to have a beginning, something else to work on.

The most basic of beginnings and a core-belief you suppose is either 1) God, or 2) chance happenstance is what we trace our origins to.

How you look upon that question is how your whole framework will be governed. One of those two positions is false, logically. 

If so, how can all knowing be belief, if belief is required to (erroneously) believe one is knowing when one is not?
He is a necessary Being who does not have a start or end, knows all things as they are since the universe is His creation, thus there was never a time when He had to start believing one thing to know something else. He already knows all things. Thus, He is different than you or humanity in this respect. You are limited and finite. He is not. You live in a physical realm. He is Spirit and lives in the spiritual realm but His presence is also known in the physical realm He created by what is created and by His revelation of Himself. Concerning what is created/the universe, we witness His "fingerprints" in our discoveries of how the universe works. We can formulate the mathematical principles and laws that are discovered. They do not depend on us for their operation. They point to the Lawgiver. Both the macros and the micros are full of information and intelligence that we discover. 

Mathematics and logic are a product of mindful being, yet we find the principles of mathematics and logic in the universe that we did not put there. That points to a far greater Mind.

#28
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic

Does it takes a "believer" to "believe" they are themselves *not* ignorant?
The question regarding any belief is whether it is true to what is the case. If you believe you are not ignorant just because you believe that proposition does not necessarily make it the case. Knowledge is justified true belief. Can a belief be shown to be true or reasonable? Only if what a believer believes is true can it qualify as knowledge of something? Otherwise, they are just as ignorant as those who are ignorant. 

Does it thus take a "knowing" to "know" one is themselves ignorant?
If you are trying to make sense of something (to know) and believe the truth is you don't know it, then your belief could be knowledge. Does what you believe conforms to what is, that is that you, in fact, don't know it? If you believe you don't know something and indeed don't, then you are ignorant of that something and your belief is actually the case. If you believe you don't know something yet you do, then that is a false belief and not knowledge, for knowledge conforms to what is the case. Only when your belief corresponds to what is the case can you KNOW it, or in this case, know you are ignorant of knowing it. 


What happens if one is ignorant while knowing not they are ignorant?
Then they deceive themselves. 


They are certainly a "believer" and ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
True. 


Do you believe everything you typed about Christians and Muslims?
No: I know they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves. However, I do not "blame" them: I see them as victims.
So you do not believe everything you wrote. You have refuted knowing what you claimed you knew if that is the case. 


That is why if I ever undermine the idolatrous houses of Christianity/Islam, I'd do it from the top-down. The "believers" do not know what tree they eat from.


You do not undermine Christianity. You create questions that have answers and reasonable answers that make sense. 


#29
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic
How can you have knowledge based on uncertainty? To know is to believe that which is true to what is. As I mentioned in your other post (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2896/debating-to-undermine-any-all-belief?page=1&post_number=20), knowledge is a justifiable true belief.

Knowledge = True Belief.

Knowledge is a subcategory of belief. You have to start by believing something (first presuppositions; first proposition, the building block everything else is connected, or the chain of facts that the starting belief rests upon). Since you don't know how everything is connected in all its details you must start from a belief and work from that core supposition. Can you justify your belief? If so, then it is knowledge.
As I mentioned in the other post: you have it backwards.
Belief is a subcategory of knowledge.
If you don't know something you can't justify it as a true belief. 

***

You have grown up isolated with no modern conveniences, are a vegetarian and eat everything uncooked, and have never touched steaming hot water before from a kitchen tap. You have seen mist and steam rising from a stream due to condensation (signifying the difference in temperature to those who know) but it means nothing to you. The mist has not burned you when you touched the water.

You are introduced to a modern kitchen and see the running water. Can you know the water from the tap is hot before you experience the sensation? Do you know that the mist and steam from the steam signifies a heat exchange? Once you experience the burn you have a belief that water from a kitchen tap is hot (you do not continue to believe nothing about the hot water or tap at all), a belief that corresponds to what is, thus you know one thing although not necessarily the complete knowledge of the water from the tap.

Now, what happens if you do not realize the difference between the hot water tap and a cold water tap? The water is again coming through the tap. Is your belief that you will get burned next time you put your hands under the tap necessarily justified? No, because you have no knowledge of the difference between the hot and cold taps, even though the water comes through the same faucet. If you see the steam/mist rising from the steam but it has never burned you, why would you believe the steam coming from the tap is going to burn you now? Again you have to rightly connect the parts to have a justifiable knowledge of the water tap. 

You first have to connect water, stream, steam, in conjunction with hot water, tap, steam, plus the consequences of what you experienced to your belief system before you have knowledge that the steaming water from the tap will burn you. You have to believe there is a tap there before you use it. You have to believe that the tap will dispense water when turned on and hot water if you turn the hot water valve. You have to believe that hot water is also signified by steam coming from the faucet, which will burn you if you place your body parts under it. You have to believe there is a difference between the water from the stream and the water from the hot water tap. If you don't know what the tap does, you will be ignorant of its purpose. Thus, when you see it you must believe it has a purpose and that purpose must first be confirmed to your belief system before you know its purpose and can use it correctly.

***

You first have to believe something before you can know it. You start with a basic presupposition. (I.e., that water coming from the tap is hot and will burn me). If that presupposition pans out to what is the case, you have knowledge.

If you don't believe it is the case how can you know it? 

Conversely, you can believe you know something but don't for the reason that it does not correspond to what is the case or you have not connected enough of the gray matter with the real.


Knowledge-in-and-of-itself <-* knowing any/all *not* to believe (to a certainty)
Belief-in-and-of-itself <-* trying belief for belief-based ignorance(s)
Ignorance-in-and-of-itself <-* no conscious knowledge of ignorance

True Belief = Knowledge of any/all degrees of uncertainty pertaining to that belief. It is conscious knowledge of ignorance. The conscious justification never pertains to how the "belief" could be "true", but rather "false". That is conscious knowledge of ignorance.
Knowledge is true JUSTIFIED belief. It is what is the case and has been confirmed to your belief system. The knowledge comes once you presuppose/believe something that is confirmed to be the case. 

You have to start somewhere. That start is your belief system. It is the core of your belief system, the things you first presuppose to believe other things.


If a personal "believes" something to be "certain" they are ignorant-in-and-of-themselves.
Do you believe truth is necessary to know something?

Is truth something that is the case? If so, then there is a certainty of knowing it, once you understand what it is.

***

If a person "believes" something to be certain they are not ignorant if the belief is justifiably true. If it is justifiably true it is truly known.

Do you know the laws of logic (the laws of contradiction, identity, and excluded middle) are necessary to believe before you can make sense of any communication? The laws of logic would be self-evident since to deny these laws (and make sense) is to use them. 

By saying, "I deny the laws of logic," you have used them in the denial. What you claim goes against what you actually say, so you refute your own statement. 

#30
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@AGnosticAgnostic

Knowledge is a positive belief that is also true to what is the case. You do not generally believe or put your trust in something that you think negatively about.

You, acting as your highest authority (it's so because you know it when in fact you don't) or the ultimate reference point for knowledge, disbelieve the Bible. How well do you understand it? I bet not well and I would like to challenge you on such an assumption. I would hazard that you do not know because you cannot properly connect what is said from your bias and preconceived notions on what it says and its true meaning. 
Knowledge is not a positive belief, it is the negation of belief. Belief graduates into knowledge after falsified.
Thus belief comes first!


I know the first five books of "Moses" were not authored by Moses, but had four source authors J, E, P, D and a fifth R(edactor).
Not according to those closest to the writings. Jesus attributes the Pentateuch to Moses and what he wrote. So do others. But regardless, even if they were transcribed by others the words and thoughts are attributed to Moses and his revelation from God.  

“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves behind a wife and leaves no child, his brother should marry the wife and raise up children to his brother.

When he mentions Moses wrote for us he lists what is written in the Pentateuch. 

But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Jesus explains to them the things that come from Moses and the things Moses wrote about. 

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me.

For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness.