"Atheists Killed >140 millions" is Fallacious

[Age]

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

Keeping in mind that we are debating the details of a myth, as in something that never actually took place in any real sense,...

And you base this claim on what, exactly, "seeds"?

...the question is, how can beings who do not yet possess the knowledge of good and evil (right from wrong) be held accountable for their actions, especially when the one making the big stink about it (God) did absolutely nothing to protect such clueless beings from, again, the evilest most insidiously persuasive demon in all of reality?

you are completely, literally, 'missing the mark' here. (And, when you find out what 'missing the mark' is referenced by), then things start becoming more clearer.

Now, one of the points/marks of 'this story' is that what is Right, and Wrong, in Life, is always already instinctively Known, within,

And, when one does not listen to and follow 'this' Knowing, then this is when things go downhill, leading to ones demise, or death if one likes. This goes individually and collectively for you human beings also.

And, by the way, I have not even begun mentioning and talking about how absolutely every thing here can be backed up and supported, and in ways that could not be refuted.

Should we punish a toddler because an adult pedophile talked her into allowing the pedophile to sexually abuse her?
_______

you might have brought up a good point here, Why do some children like, and some even love and enjoy, being sexually abused?

Now what could have 'possessed' them to be 'that way'?

But as will be shown and proved here, most of you adults were not yet ready for this kind of exploration, and uncovering, discovery, and revelations. And this is because you were only stuck in trying to maintain and fight for your currently held onto beliefs and presumptions here.

[Age]

Okay, myth disssection it is then...

It's worse than what you are pointing out, bahman, for not only did the God in the Eden myth omnisciently "know" that Adam and Eve would not be able to resist the fruit of the tree that he created and made readily available to them,...

...but he, being the worse parent imaginable, allowed the evilest (most insidiously persuasive) demon in all of reality (Satan) uninhibited access to them.

In other words, it's the equivalent of human parents going out for dinner and a movie while knowing full well that the babysitter they hired is a convicted pedophile.

No, wait, it's the equivalent of human parents literally watching a pedophile abuse their children while not making the slightest effort to intervene in the crime.
_______

True. That was Satan who fooled Eve first by saying that the fruit makes you look like God and that God would never punish you for eating the fruit. I pointed out the existence of the Serpent several times in my previous posts but IC simply ignored it.

Actually (as per the the myth), Satan was being truthful,...

...for even God concurred that because they had eaten the fruit, Adam and Eve (like God and the occupants of heaven) had gained the knowledge of good and evil.

However, somehow, that educational benefit (or curse?) regarding the knowledge of good and evil seems to have been edited out of the gene pool from which IC is descended,...

...for he cannot seem to comprehend how profoundly evil it would be for him to not give one whit if his friends and loved ones are being savagely tortured in Hell for eternity, while he enjoys an eternity of pleasure and bliss in heaven.
_______

As can be clearly seen here "seeds" and "Immanuel can" have both been completely and utterly fooled into believing the complete and utter misinterpretations, which they have both been given, have obtained, and laughably believe are true.

[Age]

Creating an agent with free will is good indeed. I am however asking why God created a sinful situation in which He knew that Adam and Eve would fail. The fact that God knew that they would fail yet persisted in putting them in that condition means that God has an intention or purpose.

His intention was exactly what I was suggesting, I think: to create beings that had a choice of whether or not to know and love Him -- who had their own personalities, wills, choices, identities, and so on, and could thus be genuine companions, should they choose to do so.

Of course, the downside of that strategy is obvious: they might choose not to do so. That's the problem with free-will-having beings; they don't always do what you would desire them to do. But some would. As it is written in John 1:

"He [Jesus Christ] was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name..."

God's intention is obvious. He wanted them to fail! And now, we children of Adam and Eve, living and suffering in a cursed world with doubt whether what you said is true or false! Honestly, that is not a thing that all wise, all love,... God would do.

Considering what you will, and some have already, learned from a relatively few years, since "adam" and "eve", and how this learning will transpire into an eternity of peace and harmonious living, you human beings having so-called 'failed' in those last few hundred thousands years or so, is really not that much of a sacrifice at all. Also, you human beings, individually and collectively, only Truly 'fail' if you do not learn, from your mistakes.

Are adults meant to 'carry' their children for all of their lives, or are you human beings meant to grow up, mature, and be left to your own devices, at some stage?

By the way, you mentioned elsewhere that you experienced Jesus. Would you share your experience with us?

"immanuel can" will not be able to give any clear cut and True version of "jesus". However, with the second coming of "jesus" more will be revealed, and become known.

[Age]

I pointed out the existence of the Serpent several times in my previous posts but IC simply ignored it.

Well, it's not relevant. The Tempter is merely the means by which Eve received the choice. It didn't make her make the choice she did. She was still fully responsible for what she did. And Genesis is quite clear about that, too.

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

This kind of response would be very expected from one like "immanuel can" who believes absolutely that God, Itself, is a 'he'.

See, what would be taking place here, right now, if the serpent had fooled, tricked, or deceived "adam" instead is "immanuel can" would be here blaming the serpent, fully.

Now, there are so many ways to look at and see 'this story', as well as many other things, however, to put part of 'that story' into current terms, when this is being written, 'women', generally, will see the bright or shining thing, and want or desire it, while 'men', generally, when they do wrong will blame something else, for their own wrong doing. Just like how "adam" blamed "eve" for also eating 'the fruit', and also like how "immanuel can" will blame just about absolutely anything else, for what it says, claims, and/or does.

Also, and by the way, the reason the 'serpent' is used in 'that story' is for very specific reasons, as well. Which will all come-to-light and be revealed, soon enough.

[Age]

His intention was exactly what I was suggesting, I think: to create beings that had a choice of whether or not to know and love Him -- who had their own personalities, wills, choices, identities, and so on, and could thus be genuine companions, should they choose to do so.

Of course, the downside of that strategy is obvious: they might choose not to do so. That's the problem with free-will-having beings; they don't always do what you would desire them to do. But some would. As it is written in John 1:

"He [Jesus Christ] was the true Light that, coming into the world, enlightens every person.

He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and His own people did not accept Him.

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name..."

God's intention is obvious. He wanted them to fail!

He didn't, actually. That's why He instructed them not to take from the tree. What He wanted them to do was to choose freely to obey.

But what is the purpose of 'wanting' them to 'choose freely'?

Obviously, they could not do absolutely anything other than just 'choose freely'?

you really do say some of the most weirdest and strangest things "immanuel can".

But again, when you give a creature free will...things can happen.

Things always happen "immanuel can". There is no way of stopping this.

By the way, you mentioned elsewhere that you experienced Jesus. Would you share your experience with us?

I can't remember the context of the discussion, nor using that precise wording, which seems far too casual for me: it sounds like something said in a sort of hippy voice. Can you locate what you're referring to?

Have you experienced "jesus" "immanuel can"?

If yes, then would you share your experience with "bahman" at least?

[Age]

Well, it's not relevant. The Tempter is merely the means by which Eve received the choice. It didn't make her make the choice she did. She was still fully responsible for what she did. And Genesis is quite clear about that, too.

It is very relevant. Eve was fooled by the Serpent so there is no excuse to punish her.

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent.

Here is another Truly stupid, absurd, and ridiculous thing to say and claim.

What you are saying and claiming here "immanuel can" is that when you are fooled, (which is far more often than you would like to know), you were fooled with your deliberate will and consent. Which is just beyond being absolutely ludicrous.

The definition of being 'fooled' entails that it happens unknowingly or without consent.

Of course "eve" chose, freely', to eat of the fruit, but just as obvious is that "eve" had been previously fooled, tricked, and/or deceived into thinking or believing that "she" was making a good or the right choice.

The passage clearly says,

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

Which clearly means that something can only be perceived to make one wise from an internal listening. For surely not even you "immanuel can" would believe that just by sight alone one would think, 'The tree was desirable to make one wise'?

An internal 'listening' had to have taken place prior. And what just happened was "eve" was 'listening' to the 'thinking', [the presumptions or beliefs], within that body, instead of 'listening' to the 'Knowing', which also existed within that body.

Also, are you people here even yet aware that the story of "adam" and "eve" is just a reference to when you human beings came to being, through evolution, itself, and into and along another stage in Life, along the path of 'I' coming-to-know thy Self?

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information.

And where did "eve" get these three considerations from, exactly?

Surely it was from, literally, the 'lowest' form of life, that is; the one that slithers closest to the ground, and which has a forked tongue, meaning that is 'splits the Truth'? Which is just a symbol for the lies, which is the lowest of lows, which 'we' tell "ourselves", from within.

Or, do you think human beings/creatures/animals, before human beings evolved into a certain stage, and thus began, noticing, recognizing, and thinking more and more like, for example, not actually is 'that' just a tree, but 'that one' actually has 'more beauty' than that other one over there, 'that one' is appealing and draws me to it, and 'that one' will provide me with new information, these human beings/creatures/animals before this coming into 'being' saw and thought the things here?

Until only very, very recently, and still even in some parcels of lands, human beings never think that 'that tree' looks good, is appealing, nor it would bring with it new information.

These human beings/animals just live, and are content, with what they have/is available.

She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God.

And "eve's" reasons where "she" had been fooled, tricked, and decieved by her own, personal, inner-voice.

She chose her rebellion.

Just like you still choose to follow your own, personal, greedy and selfish ways "immanuel can", and choose not to listen to the True and Real inner-voice, of reason, sometimes known as 'Conscience', or God, itself.

you also listen to and follow your own personal thinking, assuming and believing "immanuel can" instead of listening to and following thy Real and True Self, which is also known as thee Spirit, Allah, God, Enlightenment, among other things.

Now, if all people listened to and followed the SAGE, Itself, which is obviously within EVERY one, instead of listening to and following their own personal thoughts and feelings, which obviously could have come from nothing other than just that one and only single and individual human body has experienced, then 'the world' would be a much, much, much better place than it is 'now', in the days when this is being written.

But, again, there is absolutely no rush nor hurry here, because you human beings learn best by, and from, your own mistakes. So, just telling you what is actually Right and Wrong, in Life, was never the best way nor intended way for you, human beings, to learn and become Truly wiser.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing.

Yet "adam" still blamed another.

The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

Why?

The result is yet-to-come.

This is all just a story about how you, human beings, came-to-exist, through evolution, and part of a greater story about how, exactly, how 'we' all end up coming-to-get-her, to create and living in peace and harmony together, as One.

A story yet to be fully revealed, to those of you in the days when this is being written.

[Age]

even if my knowledge of your choice is 100% right, it wouldn't imply I made you choose anything.

Your knowledge is based on knowing me and what I've done. I may surprise you with what I choose to do next. God's knowledge, as you reckon Him, is absolute. He knows not only what I've done, but what I will do, even before I've made the choice.

I cannot be a libertarian free will if God has such perfect knowledge.

Why exactly?

What stops you doing what you will do, just because, let us say, I know what you will do next?

I am a libertarian free will and He exists. Sumthin' (someone), as I say, has to give. I can't. Me, as a free will, can't be sumthin' else, or sumthin' less, and be a free will. So God chooses to deny himself knowledge of what I'll do, or, God is incapable of knowing.

None of this actually logically follows.

God knows what you will do, and what you have already done in what you call 'the future', to you. AND, you will still continue to say and believe that you are a 'libertarian free will'.

Which was obviously False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, in the beginning, just as those human beings who claim to be "christians", "muslims", "americans", "arabs", "doctors" and/or "olympic swimmers" are False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect claims.

you, human beings, are human beings, alone, and which is made up of a visible human body, and invisible thoughts and feelings. Nothing more, and nothing less.

But as God already knows, you, "henry quirk", will keep believing and telling "yourself" and "others" that you are a so-called "libertarian free will". And worse still mistaking False claim with the question, 'Who am 'I'?'.

So what God sees must be rather like a "web" of possibilities, along which we are free to travel in the direction we choose, among those choices really possible to us.

you are Wrong and False here again "henry quirk".

Yes. He knows all the possibilities of all the permutations of my yet to be made choice. He doesn't know -- by choice or by incapability -- which possibility, which permutation will come to be.

But you know what God, Itself, does and does not know, right "henry quirk"?

Which seems Truly hypocritical to claim that God cannot know what you will do, but that little old you, "henry quirk", can know what God cannot know.

Or, do you not find this rather hypocritical?

[Age]

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

He doesn't say that, actually. His lie is more subtle.

Just out of curiosity "immanuel can", are you under some sort of DELUSION that the books you have read are the absolute and only True and Right wording for what has happened, in the past?

For example, how can you be absolutely sure that the book that "bahman" got its words from here was not a more accurate version than the one you read?

It's that he calls into question God's motivation for prohibiting Eve from getting knowledge that there are such things as good and evil. He tells her that she will "be like" God, if she knows these things.

And in one sense, that's actually true: God does know what the difference between good and evil is; but where the Tempter lied is when he said, "You shall not surely die." That much is a plain lie.

But, surely when one is like God, as God is, then that one, or those ones will not surely die. This much is very obvious and very clear.

Also, I have already partly explained here how this 'not dying' is what actually takes place and occurs here, in this one and only Existence, 'we' call Life.

But again, there is still far more to revealed, learned, and understood before all of this even begins to make far more sense to you, in the days wehn this is being written human beings,

But Eve did not need to believe the lie. She could have believed God, instead.

you say this like you have some sort of more ability here than "eve" had.

Come on "immanuel can" the only one you are really fooling and deceiving here is "yourself".

In fact let us not forget that it is you who still believes the lie that God is a 'he'. Where you could have just listened to God, Itself.

But she didn't.

Just as you continue to not, "immanuel can".

As we saw, she had her own reasons for preferring what she was hearing. And that's why her choice was not just a choice of a fruit, but rather a decision to sever her own choice from God, and thus to rupture her formerly benign relationship with God.

What we have here is another clear example of the 'male' continually blaming the 'female' for what took place, which helped in creating the life that 'man' lives, 'now'.

Are you also as open to admitting that "adam" also chose, absolutely freely', to eat the fruit, knowing darn well that God was informing "him" not to?

And that if that "man" had done that, then you would not be in the predicament that you are in 'now', "immanuel can"?

Or, are you not this open and honest here?

[Age]

If she was fooled, it was not without her deliberate will and consent. The passage clearly says,

"When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took some of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband with her, and he ate." (Gen. 3:6)

It says she made her choice on three considerations: the tree looked good, it was appealing to the eyes, and that it would bring new information. She had her reasons, obviously, and for her, they were weighed against the commandment of God. She chose her rebellion.

However, her sin is later slightly -- but far from totally -- extenuated on the basis you mention...that she was at least a little bit fooled, but Adam knew fully what he was doing. The difference, however, is not great; nor is the difference in the result very great.

I am talking about the verse that the Serpent said that God would not punish you if you eat from the tree.

Keeping in mind that we are debating the details of a myth, as in something that never actually took place in any real sense,...

Here is another example of another who believes, absolutely, that it knows what, really, took place, in the past.

...the question is, how can beings who do not yet possess the knowledge of good and evil (right from wrong) be held accountable for their actions, especially when the one making the big stink about it (God) did absolutely nothing to protect such clueless beings from, again, the evilest most insidiously persuasive demon in all of reality?

But why do you even presume and/or believe that you do not yet possess the knowledge of good and evil?

Is there absolutely no thing that you could actually be in possession of that you have not yet become privy nor savvy to?

Should we punish a toddler because an adult pedophile talked her into allowing the pedophile to sexually abuse her?
_______

[Age]

Should we punish a toddler because an adult pedophile talked her into allowing the pedophile to sexually abuse her?

Toddlers have insufficient judgment to make decisions. Eve clearly was capable of deliberation and of finding her own reasons to do whatever she chose to do.

And "eve" found those 'reasons' through lies told to "her".

If the lies had not existed, then the Wrong that pursued would not have occurred.

And, conversely, the Wrong would not have occurred, if the lies had not persuaded "her" to do Wrong.

Now, of course, like all of you human beings, having 'free will' does not ensue that you will always follow what is right and correct, as you can only choose from the pre-existing thoughts and thinking, or story telling, within.

See, before the lies began, as mentioned in the story of "adam" and "eve" when they were created, and/or evolved into being, the preceding animals never did wrong. Only when animals had evolved into thinking/considering human beings could they then, consciously, 'freely choose' to do what was, instinctively knowing to be right, or wrong.

And she was informed of and knew the full consequences in advance, as well; that, toddlers do not do. So the analogy really doesn't fit at all.

[Age]

If God knows absolutely what I will do: I cannot be a free will.

Why can you supposedly not be free, if God knows what you will do "henry quirk"?

Explain to 'us' how and why this makes logical sense.

I am a free will and God exists.

This has absolutely nothing at all to do with your previous sentence and claim.

So: He chooses to deny Himself knowledge of what I will do, or, He is incapable of knowing what I'll do.

Why would you even think or presume such a thing?

Why, supposedly, can God not know what you will do, and still just exist, while you continue to claim that you are 'a free will?

In the first (which I favor) God can but does not. In the second (which I disfavor) God simply cannot.

No other options presented, so far, make a lick of sense to me.

Why?

Why does it not make any sense, to you, that some thing could know what you will do, and still exist?

What is so hard and complicated for you to comprehend and make sense here, exactly?

[Age]

to my mind, the question is really about this ''tree of knowledge of good and evil''
innocence is thought of to be ignorant of the ''knowledge of good and evil"
to gain knowledge, gaining knowledge of ''good and evil'' is wisdom..
and yet forbidden by god.... and so the question must be asked,
why ban/forbid the wisdom of knowing what is, good and evil?
why this knowledge and not another knowledge?

But the knowledge of good and evil, nor the wisdom of knowing what is good and evil, was and is never banned/forbid.

It does evolves into Existence, like all other evolved things did.

Why would you presume or believe such a thing as this?

would human beings benefit in some fashion in not knowing
''good and evil?"

Like all evolving things, the, conscious, knowing of good and evil is just evolving.

in thinking about this, why is it even ''good AND evil''
instead of ''good vs evil''....

Because in the days when this is being written one AND the other exist.

Also, good does not verse evil. you adult human beings just choose whether to do good OR evil things.

saying ''good and evil'' implies/suggest
that there is no difference between good and evil....

Not to me it certainly does not.

they are the same thing,
if the tree of knowledge has the apple which gives us ''good and evil''
if god can't tell the difference between the two, then perhaps there
is no difference between good and evil?

But who ever said or claimed that God cannot tell the difference between good and evil?

in the Garden of Eden, there is no knowledge of good and evil, it is
innocent of that knowledge...

Yes, and the 'Garden of Eden' just refers to how 'life' was before human beings came to exist and choosing to do, what was unconsciously known is, Wrong.

The 'Garden of Eden' also and by the way returns after you adult human beings start doing only what is Right, in Life.

and it is considered to be an ideal place
to live in... a superior model as it were...and yet, there is no knowledge
of ''good and evil'' does that mean if we wanted to return to the Garden
of Eden.. would we need to dump any knowledge of ''good and evil?''

Not at all.

And this here is another example of the way some people would just see things in what is sometimes referred to as 'black or white thinking'.

if as god suggests, that the highest knowledge to know, was
''good and evil'' then why don't we spend more time on understanding
what good is and what evil is? oh, wait god did tell us?
and most people, including so called Christians just ignore that
knowledge... ''thou shall not kill'' for example is completely ignored...
as is the one about adultery..... or said another way, Christian pick
and choose which aspects of the ten commandments applies to them..
which is... wait for it, situational ethics...the situation dictates the
ethics.. but does situational ethics, actually part of the knowledge
of good and evil and that we should know? which is just another
brick in the wall....

Kropotkin

Why do you seem to imply that only "christians" choose when to do Wrong, and Right?

Obviously all of you human beings, in the days when this is being written, do Wrong, and Right.

[Age]

Prior to eating the fruit, the mythological Eve had absolutely no knowledge of good and evil, as in no way of knowing if her decision to eat the fruit was right or wrong, period, end of story.

That's incorrect, actually.

She had already been told, by God,"...for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die."

And why in the world would you expect a person,...

(who, by all practical definitions, was a "child" who had absolutely no knowledge of what good or evil was truly about)

...again, why would you expect that child to trust the word of a Being who stood by and did absolutely nothing to prevent the evilest demon in all reality from taking advantage of her "pre-sin" cluelessness by using its biblically acknowledged "crafty-ness" to talk her into sampling a forbidden fruit?

But "eve" by definition is a woman and thus not a child.

Now maybe an argument can be made about the fact that after Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil, then perhaps...

(depending on how fast acting the magic in the fruit was )

...she should have known not to drag poor ol' Adam into the situation.

But, hey, what are wives for if not to get us guys into trouble (and vice-versa). Or perhaps it was simply an instance of "misery loves company," right?

Anyway, the bottom line is that no matter what God may have said to Eve, the fact still remains that, again, prior to her eating the forbidden fruit, Eve had absolutely no way of knowing if her decision to eat the fruit was right or wrong.

But this is False and Wrong, as "eve" had a way of Knowing Right from Wrong.

Obtaining and gaining the knowledge of something/right and wrong is another thing.

In other words, Eve's (before and after) innocence is implicit in the very premise of the story.

The story is about the evolving processes of human beings.

In which case, when it comes to that so-called "original sin" representing the official point in time when the "fall of man" took place, which, in turn, condemned all subsequent humans to be the inheritors of the guilt and consequences associated with the sins of Adam and Eve,...

Here we can see how these posters here still had not yet learned and understood, fully, what the 'sin' word means or refers to, exactly.

...let's consult the forum's leading expert on the proper way of viewing the situation...

Do you want to make children guilty for what their distant forefathers chose to do? In what court would that be considered "justice"?

You don't become guilty by being born. That's ridiculous...

...So I call "hogwash" on that.

Such reasonable and logical words are rarely ever spoken by IC, which is why I like to trot them out from time to time.
_______

[Age]

She had already been told, by God,"...for in the day you eat of it, you shall surely die." ...

Eve and Adam were the first people, what exactly did they know about death? Did they bury someone while living in paradise?

I can't tell you for sure what they knew about the meaning of death. Maybe little, maybe much, depending on what God had revealed to them. But I can tell you that they knew very clearly Who told them that that knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil, was not intended for them, and that they should not desire it.

But how can you tell us, very clearly, what was supposedly told to someone countless years beforehand?

[nemos]

Are adults meant to 'carry' their children for all of their lives, or are you human beings meant to grow up, mature, and be left to your own devices, at some stage?