Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Certainly real » Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:38 pm

In my previous blog posts I outlined the nature of Existence as necessarily Being Perfect (Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnibenevolant) I also outlined that reason categorises all things into four categories: The necessary, potential, unknown and absurd. With these things in mind, I outlined the foundation of morality apriori (pure reason).

Given the nature of this topic, I will use different words to label the same semantics as I feel this increases the depth and breadth of what I’m trying to convey. Please note, I will use the labels God and Existence interchangeably. They denote the same thing. They both denote that which is Infinite, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnibenevolant. They denote that which is AlRahman (Perfect) AlRaheem (Constantly Giving/Providing).

In a nutshell, I argued that Existence Exists Perfectly and everything that It does, amounts to instances of maximum goods all things considered. We’d have to be Infinite to be able to do the calculations. This trait/capacity and ability is exclusively God’s/Existence’s. This is manifestly evident with regards to free-will. This post will try and further demonstrate this apriori point.

Pure apriori reasoning dictates that regarding free-will, religion is perhaps the only empirically suitable source that metaphorically demonstrates this to us in the form of Adam, Eve and Satan. It is impossible for us to fully/truly determine in a final/decisive manner who is good or evil. That is for God to do. Only God/Existence is Infinite so only it can do the calculations. So, S) For those who are not content with the apriori (pure reason), religion provides empirical (aposteriori) demonstrations which serve to strengthen belief in this apriori fact. Remember point S as it is the outline for why Adam and Eve descended from paradise and how/why they were forgiven by God and Satan wasn’t.

Regarding religion, I will be focused on the religion of Islam. The following is a quick overview on what this religion amounts to according to my understanding: Once the Perfection of Existence is sufficiently acknowledged, trust in the Perfection of Existence follows. Once trust in the Perfection of Existence is sufficiently in place, surrender to the Perfection of Existence follows. With sufficient trust and love in the Perfection of Existence, effective surrendering to a maximally good outcome occurs. To doubt God’s Perfection and Providence at any given point in time is absurd. It will not take away from the maximally good outcome being brought about, but it will takeaway from how much the free-willed agent enjoys or not enjoys and suffers or not suffers in the process. If any agent is so absurd that they are against a maximally good outcome (one that is best for all all things considered), then the maximally good outcome will still be brought about, but this will be done against the absurd agent’s will. So agents that embrace any form or element of absurdity, have embraced pain and suffering in some way. Absurd as it is on the irrational agent’s part, it is the absurd agent’s own decision. It (the maximum good) will still be brought about but at the expense of the absurd agent suffering. This is the absurd agent’s own doing. This is the absurd agent’s own fault. It rejected Existence’s Perfection, so it occupies the position that it occupies.

Regardless of how things look, so long as one has not been irrational, and so long as this trust and love is sufficiently in place such that no doubt enters into one’s heart regarding the Perfection of Existence and it bringing about the maximally good outcome for all its servants/those who seek to exist well, then rationally speaking, there is no room for grief. Grief would be absurd in such a scenario. I will focus on what this religion’s final scripture (the Quran) says with regards to the origins and purpose of humanity. This in turn will hopefully provide some examples and an insight into what the purpose of free-willed agents are and how they can exist maximally well.

So let’s start with Adam. According to the Quran, God told the angels It is placing a successor on Earth. The angels questioned this at first asking why create/place a being that would cause corruption in it. The implication of this verse is that the angels did not understand how this would amount to a maximally good outcome. The reply from God was I am Omniscient you are not. So when the time came, per God’s command, Adam demonstrated to the angels that it knew the names of all things (something the angels did not know) The angels were then asked to yield to Adam. All acknowledged with the exception of Satan/Iblis. It was asked of Satan why it did not yield to God’s command. It replied “I am better than Adam”. This was an instance/example of rejecting God’s Perfection. A disregard of the apriori. This lead to humanity’s greatest fault as will become clear further on.

Any instance of failing to deal with things the best way, in other words, any instance that amounts to less than fearlessly upholding reason with trust in the Perfection of Existence and love for what it Provides (That which is truly best for everyone all things considered/maximally good outcomes all things considered), is an instance of transgression. The depth and breath of transgression can vary amongst free-willed agents. I say free-willed, at this point, it might be worth asking yourself this: How free-willed is an agent that has not willingly surrendered to the Perfection of Existence? How free-willed is an agent that has not fully surrendered to the rationally necessary maximally good outcome all things considered? Is it anything other than less free than it would have been if it had fully surrendered?

On one end of the spectrum you have people who on the surface of things despair because they think they’ve not made the right choice when faced with what for them was an overwhelming circumstance aposteriori (empirically). The primary layer is worth mentioning here: Existence is Perfect, the best outcome will happen no matter what. Trust and love in the Perfection of Existence is the absolute priority. If one is devoid of this on any level, then they are at fault. The more devoid of this they are, the more they are at fault.

So what happens when a testing circumstance presents itself to agents who adhere to this layer? These agents should simply uphold reason as best as they can and then maintain trust and love in the Perfection of Existence. If they’ve made mistakes, and they are sincere, they will learn from it. Their grasp and dealings with the apsoteriori will improve.

Per the dictates of reason, we were all positioned in such a way as to bring about the maximum good all things considered. That’s all relations, potentials and interactions and any other other additional factors considered by God. If you’ve not gone so far astray as to be utterly mad (see pure evil/absurdity), then you can see how repentance and reform (improving yourself in relation to this primary layer and upholding reason effectively) is possible. It is simple but true. No matter how things look or feel, so long as your grasp of the primary layer and reason is sufficiently in place, you will neither despair, nor grow exultant. You will have a strong bond that will be difficult to break.

So this is in no way an advocation of the abandonment of the effort to strive and reason well in any given situation. This is simply a reminder that when the apsoteriori takes anything away from this primary layer (when evil/irrationality starts to become evident and nothing rational is done to address it) it does not matter how potent the aposteriori/immediate appearance of things are, it is an injustice done by the free-willed agent to hold for even one millisecond or less or more, the belief that what has occurred, was ultimately unjust or that it was less than the maximally good outcome all things considered. I literally cannot emphasise this enough; no matter how potent the immediate appearance of things are (you could witness what appear to be the most horrific things or the opposite) to think for a second that it’s not Just all things considered, or that it was not for the best all things considered, is to hold an absurd, unjust, inaccurate, blasphemous, damning view of God/Existence.

Let it be noted, in no way am I saying that we ought not to strive to deal with the aposteriori in the best way. If someone tells you to jump off a cliff, you may be at odds with the apriori to do it, in which case you would have done wrong. But again, if your intention was not pure evil, do not worry. Just make sure you go back to the core as soon as you have any doubts whatsoever. The lesser this bond, the greater the self-inflicted harm. The stronger an agent’s ability to tame the aposteriori’s attempts at taking anything away from the apriori (God’s Perfection/Existence’s Perfection), the greater this agent’s capacity as a free-willed agent) Some relevant verses to consider here from the Quran that reflect this:

2:285 God does not impose a person (free-willed agent) beyond its capacity. For it is what it earns, and against it is what it earns…

Simply put, do your best to be good (as in uphold reason fearlessly with regards to the future. Trust in the Perfection of Existence fully) That is all. What matters most is the potency of good you manage to checkpoint and the standards you set and raise which can only be done by improving your acknowledgement of Existence Being Perfect. If no good options are available to you and doing nothing comes across as lazy or inappropriate, it is simply because you are not sufficiently rational in relation to the apriori. When things just seem to get worse, so much so that you think there is no way they can amount to something maximally good, reject this premise immediately. It is absurd and only the work of the devil/that which seeks to take away from pure reason. There are endless ways things can amount to a maximally good outcome. Just because you haven’t seen the ending, doesn’t mean it’s not coming. There is no way things ever amount to less than the maximally good outcome. Anything less than the maximally good outcome, is absurd.

To my understanding, if one is seeking maximum competence and benevolence in Existence, then ultimately, such a soul ought to expect to have to deal with the most potent form of aposteriori assault on their apriori reasoning (the foundation of which is Existence is Perfect). Souls that despair so much as a result of the aposteriori whilst refusing to descend in sentience potency or seek refuge with God (Souls that insufficiently recall apriori that Existence (not them) is Perfect, and that it is Existence that is ultimately responsible for the maximally good outcome all things considered), will either strengthen in their ability to handle/tame the aposteriori in an apriori manner (effective remembrance of Existence being Perfect and that the maximally good outcome will happen no matter what, whilst dealing rationally with their situation), or, their apriori will become more and more tainted and their potential suffering more and more potent so much so, that they become exultant to the point of actively harming others susceptible to harm in Existence. That is those who are gullible to the belief that Existence is not Perfect and will not bring about a maximally good ending for the righteous.

The more gullible one is in relation to this, the less fortunate they are. The less free they are. The more potently things end up happening against their will in an ultimate sense. When all is said and done, the righteous will be happy and the unrighteous will be the opposite. This is the nature of Existence. It is Perfect. It will not allow for good people to suffer unless they are irrational with regards to Its nature or their own situation. It will allow bad people to suffer because they went against Its nature. The more they did/do this, the more they suffer.

If you position potent evil such that it takes on potent good, what will be the outcome? Which will be victorious? What can good do that evil cannot? What can the rational do that the irrational can’t? You give evil the means to maximise its own benefit and give it a pretend simulation to see if there was an eternal hell wherein which it would benefit at the expense of the pain and suffering of others, what do you think it would do? If it’s pure evil, it would maximise the pain and suffering of others just so it can benefit. It would create Hell just so it can benefit maximally. It would do what is grossly in opposition to the nature of Existence.

Pure evil is when a being is so potently in opposition to God/ Existence such that it would endlessly harm as many beings as possible in order to benefit itself in some way. Do you think God would allow for such absurdity to truly come to pass at all? If people are sufficiently good, such that when pure evil threatens them with eternal hell, they see the potent absurdity in such a suggestion (thereby almost amounting to comedy if it were not so grossly offensive to witness. Imagine a grown adult being given a water gun and then it going to everyone and threatening them with killing them with his water gun. The absurdity is funny at first but enraging when it actually demonstrates it would kill for its own benefit)

Simply put, at any given point in time, when you are forced to deal with the aposteriori, deal with it with the aforementioned priority in mind. One you’ve made a decision, do not worry about whether the maximally good outcome will be brought about or not. It will be brought about. This is apriori guaranteed. So for example, if you think your decision has lead to harming someone innocent whilst being truly sincere and moral (so no self-righteousness or selfishness in the decision you made) then you will not suffer during the process of the maximum good being brought about. If you then allow worry to enter your heart with thoughts like (what if this happens, what if that happens) you’d be making a mistake. If it’s for the best, it will happen. If it’s not for the best, it will not happen. You are only responsible for making sure that your morality has been sufficient with the primary layer in place. For how can you view Existence as Perfect if you’re morality is weak? And are you not hypocritical in your view of it if you allow any element of doubt or worry to enter your heart regarding a maximally happy/good ending all things considered?

As love is perhaps the hardest thing that tests us aposteriori (the fear of losing loved ones or seeing our loved ones in pain) then simply put, given God’s Perfection, if our loved ones are sufficiently good, they will not be lost at all nor will they be susceptible to any kind of suffering or unhappiness. If they endure suffering or unhappiness, it is ultimately because it’s for the best (they will improve as a result of it). I believe the story of Abraham’s sacrifice is in relation to this. He trusted in the maximally good outcome all things considered despite it appearing to him as though he’d be sacrificing his morally good son for the sake of righteousness.

If one has not positioned the statement “Existence is Perfect and does Perfectly” appropriately in their belief system or approach to any matter, then some level of failure/loss of good is inevitable on their part (as in they would have a lesser portion of glory or happiness with regards to the final maximally good ending. Again, for the soul is what it earns, and against it is what it earns. If one desires righteousness then they must volunteer righteousness. This is rationally pursuing causes that amount to benefiting people in some way. Those who fight against oppression and injustice are prime examples of those who volunteer righteousness.

Once again, the empirical (how things look) will test the apriori (how things truly are). There is good to be had in the empirical (how things look) provided that it does not contradict the apriori (how things are/ought to be).

There are examples where religions are taken too far because some try to “glorify” God or make sacrifices/offerings due to some misguided notion that amounts to being at odds with reason on some level. This often manifests itself in the form of self-righteousness. For example, some muslims cut themselves and deliberately cause themselves pain to try to generate grief over what history tells them to be the tragic death of a hero. Alternatively, some Christians think that they have the ability to takeaway from another’s sins via superficial means (such as baptising or simply saying God forgives you without doing anything rational in terms of repentance and reform).

These are gross instances of absurdity. They are potently blasphemous. If Jesus Christ ever volunteered to endure pointless pain and suffering (and I strongly doubt he ever did such a thing), or if he ever thought he could take away the sins of others on his own, he would have been in a blasphemous state. The fault would have been his own and he would’ve needed God’s forgiveness to prevent him from despairing or growing exultant. Just like the muslims that cut themselves for absurd “reasons”. Neither their blood or their flesh reaches God. It is immensely at odds with the aforementioned first layer.

So, there are no tragedies in Existence except the ones that we choose to embrace contrary to the apriori. Secondly, only Existence/God is:

Alrahman/Alraheem (Perfect and constantly Providing in the best way/manner)
and

Al-Ghaffar/forgiving (Gh-Fa-Ra = protect, cover over, hide, shield, helmet, forgive, pardon, to ask for protection/forgiveness.)

The aforementioned examples of things amounting to absurdity (meaninglessness, pointlessness) are such that it can be said that it’s as if such people with their potent will-power have consented to God positioning them in such a way so that they burn when they could simply have not burnt in relation to the maximum good being brought about.
The absurdity is theirs. They do not take away from the Perfection of Existence, they take from their enjoyment of the maximum good being brought about with their embrace of the absurd. This worldly life demonstrates our greatest mistake (rejection of God’s Perfection) in a variety of ways. Those of us that strive to overcome this absurdity, will flourish. The greater our quality in overcoming this absurdity (evil) the greater our flourishing.

There are two verses in the scripture that to my understanding emphasise this particular point:

Neither their meat nor their blood reaches God, but what reaches It is the righteousness from you. It was thus that It made them in service to you, so that you may glorify God for what It has guided you to, and give news to the good doers. (Quran 22:37)

So those who think they’re glorifying God based on superstition (examples include female genital mutilation, touching wood, cats bringing luck, making sacrifices to God (unnecessary as God/Existence is Infinite) essentially, anything that is rationally at odds with the Perfect Existence.

“O people of the Book, do not overstep in your system/religion, nor say about God except the truth. Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of God and Its word, which It cast to Mary, and a Spirit from It. So believe in God and Its messengers, and do not say: “Three.” Cease, for it is better for you. God is only One god, be It glorified that It should have a son! To It is all that is in the heavens and the earth; and God is enough as a Caretaker (Waw-Kaf-Lam = to entrust, confirm, give, charge, dispose affairs, lean upon, reply upon)” (Quran 4:171)

So to me, this is in relation to those who want to strive for more in terms of righteousness but end up being irrational as a result of the aposteriori (how things look). I would describe those who are never irrational, or those who are hardly ever irrational, as being: guarded, inaccessible/unapproachable, chaste (where chaste is defined as: without unnecessary ornamentation; simple), strongly fortified, difficult to access, preserved, protected (against attack), abstain from what is not lawful nor decorous, preserve or guard a thing in places inaccessible/unapproachable, make or render a thing inaccessible or unapproachable or difficult to access, make/render a thing unattainable by reason of its height, to fortify oneself.

Examples of self-righteous people include those that assume omniscience in some way. Those that forget that God is enough as a Caretaker. In essence, any theory that considers it ok to take/harm an innocent life in order to save/benefit more lives, or believes that it’s ever ok to “commit evil for the ‘greater good'” given its lack of Omniscience and inability to determine the greater good all things considered, is committing to absurdity/sin/irrationality on some level. Again the maximum good will be brought about, but such irrational agents will have blood on their hands.
Only God can truly determine when and how it’s maximally good to pit good against evil and when it’s best to separate them.

Only God can fully know what each free-willed agent is capable of and how best to position them in relation to each other such that when reason is upheld effectively, there are no “tragedies” and the maximum good is achieved. Disregarding this does not alter the outcome in the maximum good being brought about except for the being that disregards it. If a being disregards it, then the maximum good is brought about against its will. As may have become evident by now, to my understanding, upholding apriori reason with maximum effeciency is to be maximally righteous/the best that one can be.

I feel like I cannot emphasise this enough. apriori reason is the only thing that must be upheld religiously. I use the adverb religiously as to me it implies potent will-power. So when this potent force is used for the wrong reason (the failure to uphold apriori reason) less than the maximum good for the irrational agent occurs. It’s the agent’s lack of sincerity to reason that has made it deserving of suffering. If it chooses to be potently sentient in the process of the maximum good brought about, then its suffering is maximised for it has denied apriori reasoning to descend in terms of sentient potency (take sedatives, or just resign or retire from that which causes them pain in the most apriori manner) and it has made no attempts to seek God’s Forgiveness, Guidance or Providence in a rational manner.

Another appropriate verse to quote: “Any good that befalls you is from God, and any evil (loss) that befalls you is from yourselves…” (Quran 4:79)

Continuing with the story of Adam and Eve, it was then clarified to Adam that Satan is an enemy to it and that avoiding it was necessary (again, put in different words, avoiding absurdity is rationally necessary regardless of how things look). The key characteristics of Satan/Iblis amount to excess in exultance/despair. These are traits that ultimately disregard the Perfection of Existence and the Omniscience of God in some way (an instance of absurdity). Despair and exultance amount to doubt with regards to God’s Providence, Planning, Positioning and Organising, which, given it Being Perfect, are done to Perfection. It ultimately amounts to doubting the Perfection of Existence and it Existing Perfectly. It amounts to doubting a maximally good outcome all things considered. It is paradoxical at its core and as already highlighted, leads to Hell.
Because of God’s Perfection and constant Providence, free-willed agents achieve immense things when their reason is exercised appropriately, adequately and with sufficient will-power. Whenever this is abandoned or not exercised strongly enough (wherein which warnings are ignored and Satan/Iblis is followed) a lesser quality of existing for free-willed agents such as emptiness, despair and hopelessness tends to ensue. The greater the sentience of the being at hand, coupled with the greater the being’s opposition to reason (it amounts to being in opposition to God), the greater the despair and anxiety it is capable of generating.

Another verse in the scripture states that God did not find in Adam the will-power:
“And We had made a pledge to Adam from before, but it forgot, and We did not find in it the will-power.” (Quran 20:115)

In this state and at this point in time, Adam was susceptible to Satan. Satan had the means (the appearance of things aposteriori) to manipulate Adam in such a way as to cloud his judgement. Done to a sufficient level, the semantics of evil is met.
A quick summary before continuing with the story might be beneficial here (please note, that this is my interpretation and that it could be wrong. The reader is reminded to uphold reason at all times and verify things for themselves)
1. God told the angels it will place a successor on Earth

2. The angels questioned this due to their limited knowledge which told them that this would not amount to a maximally good outcome

3. God told them that It is Omniscient and that they are not

4. God taught Adam the names of all things

5. God then displayed the same to the angels and they could not understand. They acknowledged this. God reminded them that it is Omniscient

6. The angels were then commanded to yield to Adam

There are cases where one’s failure to use reason primarily harms his or herself. Rational agents are hardly ever alone. They interact with the world and their interactions are effected by one another either directly or indirectly. On initial glance, it may seem that Q) our world is set up such that another human being can truly harm another truly innocent human being. It is important to ask, what is it to truly harm something and what is it for something to be truly innocent? To be truly innocent is to be maximally rational all things considered (for one is only to blame when they have failed to consider all things appropriately and adequately) What about truly harming something?

My understanding of harm is as follows: anything that suffers negativity of any sort, has been harmed. So for example, x harming the economy means that x has made the economy less well off. Economy is a complex example as it involves many free-willed agents. So all things considered, the total sum of irrationality must be sufficient of a society or community for its economy to experience harm.

It is clear that things can dip into the negative as well as the positive in terms of existing effectively or being effective. When comparing two things that are of related nature, we can measure them in terms of good and bad. For example, a comparison of gold and silver clearly highlights the superiority of gold as a more durable substance than silver. Both gold and silver can be “harmed” if they are sufficiently exposed to chlorine. So if I have a gold ring and I expose it to chlorine, then I have truly “harmed” the gold ring in terms of how effective a gold ring it is. I’ve not made it better with regards to its function of being a durable and aesthetically pleasing substance, I’ve made it worse. So, the harmed gold ring has gone from a valuable substance to a less valuable substance. Given the hierarchy of things, goals, and functions, this is a trivial matter as will become clear with my next example.

Free-willed agents are different to gold. We have a rich understanding of gold, it’s potential, what it’s good for, and so on. Regarding sentient beings, we do not have as rich an understanding. As highlighted in previous blog posts, the nature of free-will is something that we have very little knowledge of. I would argue that the core ingredient to free-will is something that amounts to semi-infiniteness of some sort. I say this because our imagination, language, and our access to reason (organising endless things and being able to focus and hone in on things amidst endlessness) demonstrates semi-infiniteness of some sort. I believe this is what gives rise to free-will and it is this that clearly distinguishes us from artificial intelligence (AI) which is by definition, always finite.

Whilst we are clearly mortal in this worldly life, what our minds and imaginations have access to is endless. This implies semi-infiniteness. Furthermore, in the scripture we are told that that which is Infinite (God), blew of its spirit into us, which to me further hints at semi-infinitness given God’s Infiniteness. We look at computers and AI and what they’re capable of and we clearly recognise their finite capacity in terms of imagination and so on. Yet regarding us, this does not hold true.

So the relevant question to ask here is what is it for a free-willed (linguistically capable rational agent) to exist well? The immediate answer is to exercise free-will maximally well. How well the agent can do this is dependent on two factors. 1) The quality or potential of the agent and 2) The quality of the environment or situation the agent is exercising free-will within.

The first thing to consider with regards to the environment is the presence of other free-willed agents. If the agent lives in isolation, then the agent is limited to interacting with non-sentient things. If other free-willed agents inhabit the environment, then the depth and breadth of interaction is potentially boosted. Factors necessary for consideration in relation to bringing about the maximum good are whether or not the free-willed agents are morally good (attempt to contribute to existing well) or morally evil (attempt to exist well at the expense of everything else, or don’t attempt to exist well at all) and how they are positioned in relation to one another given their strengths and weaknesses.

In relation to positioning good-free-willed potential and evil-free-willed potential, I believe the primary factor to consider is how to make them the best that they can be in relation to generating goodness. This would require an assessment of how each free-willed potential would react in all given situations. So when all situations are considered (Only God can do this), then and only then can a precise and accurate calculation be made as to whether it is at all hypothetically possible for a particular free-willed agent to improve or not. So ultimately those that progress (those that follow the guidance/those that uphold reason sufficiently), are blessed by God (positioned such that they end up contributing to the maximum good willingly on a potent level) whilst those that choose not to uphold reason are positioned such that they end up contributing to the maximum good against their will. Regarding good, it is clear that it is best to maximise it as much as hypothetically possible. What about evil? Given that it has chosen not to be good/does not have the free-willed potential to be/do good willingly, is it justified to place/position it in Hell? Would it not be better to just deactivate it?

The outline is simple. If evil is deactivated whilst it has the potential to contribute to good, then it’s potential contribution to good is also deactivated. Rationally speaking you never inflict pain and suffering on that which does not have the potential to harm anything else willingly. However, you’d be absurd to deny that it is justified to inflict pain and suffering on that which has willingly harmed others and demonstrated the potential to continue to harm. This is provided that it is not in excess of its wilful evil potential/intent and provided that this generates something good. If all these conditions are satisfied, pain and suffering against the will of a free-willed agent amounts to something good and ought to be brought about simply because anything less than the maximum good is paradoxical given the dictates of reason.

Before continuing with the story of Adam, Eve and Satan, let’s forget the fact that Satan did not yield to Adam. What would have been the benefits in relation to the maximum good if it had indeed yielded to Adam? The outline is clear without a doubt: Yielding to Adam would have been in its best interest simply because God always brings about the maximum good all things considered. So had Satan yielded, the maximum good would have been achieved. Alternatively, had Satan not yielded, the maximum good would still have been achieved. The maximum good is alway achieved willingly or unwillingly. If it is done willingly, it is in the free-willed agents’ best interest. If it is not done willingly (as in if it is done unwillingly), it is still in the free-willed agents’ best interest. In all cases, Existence maintains its Perfection.

The nature of free-will is such that it generates something highly valuable. So, to let any of it go to waste and not contribute to the maximum good is in opposition to the Perfection of Existence. Hence, if free-willed sentience will not contribute to good in one way, it will contribute in another way. Willingly or unwillingly, free-willed sentience will contribute to good as much as it’s sentient potential allows in relation to free-willed agents. In all cases, free-willed sentience’s contribution to good will be done with maximum potency all things considered.

Going by the scripture, to my understanding, once Adam demonstrated to the angels that it knew the description/definition of all things, the justification for why the angels were told to yield to Adam was clarified to them. Now, let’s continue with the story:

7. All yielded with the exception of Satan

8. It provided its reason (I am better than Adam) This distinguished Satan from the rest of the angels such that Satan “became arrogant, and became of the rejecters/those who embraced absurdity”

9. It was then Told “Descend from it, for it is not for you to be arrogant here; depart, for you are disgraced.”

10. It (Satan) requested respite

11. God granted it respite (per the dictates of reason, this would only be done if it amounts to a maximally good outcome)

12. Satan blamed God for its positioning: “For that which You have caused me to be misled, I will stalk for them on Your straight path. Then I will come to them from between their hands, and from behind them, and from their right, and from their left; and You will find most of them unthankful.” (Quran 7:16-17)

13. God said: “Get out from this, you are despised and banished. As for those of them who follow you, I will fill Hell with you all!” (Quran 7:18)

14. “And O Adam, reside you and your mate in the paradise, and eat from it as you both wish, and do not come near this tree, else you will be of those who have wronged.” (Quran 7:19)

So at this point in time Adam and Eve were in paradise, their position such that all angels (minus Satan) were yielding to them per the command of God (I think this is contained in 7:11-13). As I understand it, 7:19 implies that Adam and Eve were to do whatever they wanted in line with reason, the core of which is: Existence is Perfect. So going near the tree meant going near anything that amounted to irrationality/contradiction/paradox or opposition to this core (The Perfection of God). So their reasoning was sufficiently good to warrant paradise at that point in time until:

15. But Satan (Shiin-Tay-Nun (root of shaytan) = become distant/far/remote, enter firmly, become firmly fixed therein / penetrate and be concealed, turn away in opposition (from direction/aim), devil, one excessively proud/corrupt, unbelieving/rebellious/insolent/audacious/obstinate/perverse, rope, deep curved well, it burned, became burnt, serpent, any blameable faculty or power of a man) whispered to them, to reveal to them what was not apparent to them of their bodies (Siin-Waw-Alif = to treat badly, do evil to disgrace, be evil/wicked/vicious, ill, anything that makes a person sad and sorrowful, bad action, mischief and corruption, sin, evil doer, wretched or grievous, vex, annoy. su’atun (pl. suat) – corpse, external portion of both sexes, shame) and it said: “Your Lord did not prohibit you from this tree except that you would become angels (From the root word Miim-Lam-Kaf = to rule/command/reign, be capable, to control, power/authority, king, kingdom.), or you would be more potent/vigorous (from the root word: Kh-Lam-Dal = To remain/stay/dwell/abode, to remain or continue incessantly/always/endlessly/forever/perpetually, to adorn another with ornaments, to be slow in becoming hoary (when advanced in age), endowed with perpetual vigour) beings.” (Quran 7:20)

As I understand it, 7:20 ultimately means Satan’s first attempt to demonstrate his superiority to Adam came in his attempt to cloud Adam and Eve’s judgement/reasoning by suggesting to them that Existence is not Perfect; initially via unknowns (whispering) then via absurdity (Existence is not Perfect which is contained in Satan’s suggestion that God lied to Adam and Eve in relation to what was in their best interest) It is clear that only the aposteriori (how things look) can take one away from the apriori (how things truly are). I believe this is what Adam and Eve were warned about.

Satan did not sufficiently succeed in deceiving Adam and Eve the first time round. It then reiterated its point:

16. And he swore to them: “I am giving good advice.” (Quran 7:21)

It’s almost as if he reiterated his argument in a more advanced aspoteriori form. This is perhaps implied by the use of the words promise (Qaf-Waw-Lam = to say/speak, to call, to be named, word/speech, utterance, a thing said, greeting, discourse, one who says/speaks. To inspire/transmit/relate/answer/think/profess, emit an opinion on, indicate a state or condition or circumstance. qa’ilun – speaker, indicator) and swore (Qaf-Siin-Miim = to divide, dispose, separate, apportion, distribute. qasamun – oath. qismatun – partition, division, dividing, apportionment. maqsumun – divided/distinct. muqassimun (vb. 2) – one who takes oath, who apportions. qasama (vb. 3) – to swear. aqsama (vb. 4) – to swear. taqasama (vb. 6) – to swear one to another. muqtasimun (vb. 8) – who divides. istaqsama (vb. 10) – to draw lots. tastaqsimu – you seek division)

The latter (swore) is a stronger saying than the former (promised). So to my understanding, Satan first exploited the non-omniscience of Adam and Eve. It then provided aposteriori arguments regarding the unknowns that amounted to absurdity (Existence is not Perfect). His first attempt at getting absurdity to enter Adam and Eve’s heart was perhaps insufficient. So he reiterated his argument in a stronger manner. It was then, that Adam and Eve fell:

17. “So he misled them with deception (Gh-Ra-Ra = deceived, beguiled, inexperienced or ignorant in affairs, act childish, exposed to perdition or destruction without knowing, danger, hazard; deficiency of, imperfect performance of; vain things, vanities) and when they tasted the tree, their bodies became apparent to them, and they rushed to cover themselves with the leaves of the paradise…” (Quran 7:22)

So Satan’s deception worked on Adam and Eve (I think this is the same as saying it entered into their hearts that things do not amount to a maximally good outcome all things considered) Their inability to handle the aposteriori effectively, or their excessive focus on the aposteriori (how things look) at the expense of the apriori (how things truly are) took away from what was most important (Existence is Perfect).

As a result of this, the potential for worry and anxiety presented itself. Had their imperfections/shame not been so immediately apparent to them (aposteriori before the apriori as opposed to apriori before the aposteriori), their condition would have been sufficiently suitable for paradise to endure.

To me, it appears clear that the nature of both Adam and Eve’s focus on the immediate at that point in time, was such that it was at odds with the apriori (The best possible thing will happen all things considered and that nothing can get in the way of this)

Consider again what Satan did to Adam and Eve. He first brought unknowns into focus which revealed their imperfections. He then provided an absurd argument regarding the unknown. He then reiterated this argument in a stronger format.

Going back to his disobedience of God’s command; he first questioned God’s Omniscience (as did all the angels perhaps), God then provided a demonstration via Adam which resulted in all the angels yielding to Its command of “yield to Adam”. Even after this demonstration, Satan still rejected. When asked by God why it would not yield to Adam, it argued that it is better than Adam. It rejected God’s Calculation that his (Satan’s) positioning was both in his best interest and Adam’s all things considered. He persisted to argue, asking for respite.

If my understanding is correct, the argument he gave to God, was then allowed by God to be given to Adam. This was the logical consequence of Satan requesting respite and Adam not being sufficient in willpower:

And We had made a pledge to Adam from before, but he forgot, and We did not find in him the will power. (Quran 20:115)

The only logical reason that I can think of for Satan wanting respite, is to prove his point. I take two points away from this:

1. Satan had free-will (how else would he question God?)

2. All things considered, Satan being granted what he chose willingly was not absurd. It did not contradict the Perfection of Existence. The maximum good would still be brought about. If my understanding is correct, given what has been said so far, this logically implies that there were at least three ways of bringing about the maximum good.

A) Satan yielding with the rest of the angels (obeying God the first time round) = maximum good

B) Satan descending without requesting respite (disobeying God’s first command but obeying God’s second command) = maximum good

C) Satan requesting respite instead of descending (disobeying God’s first command and second command) = maximum good

If any of the aforementioned ways would not have amounted to the maximum good, then they would never have been allowed or considered. I will attempt to explain A, B and C in more detail:

Had A happened, all free-willed agents would have been happy all the time. Paradise would have held in the most effective way via way A. Had B happened, all free-willed agents would have been happy all the time. Satan would have descended (what this amounts to will become clear later) and it’s descending would have happened in such a way as to ensure that the maximum good is still achieved. So perhaps in this way, the maximum good is still achieved via the rebalancing or redistributing of free-willed potential in a different way. Way B.

Before discussing C in more detail, more needs to be said of the story of Adam, Eve and Satan.

Logically, Satan’s argument essentially amounted to the following: “God is not Perfect” (contained in rejecting God’s Omniscience). Since Satan did not see absurdity hit after Adam’s demonstration, and he was still “attempting to use reason”, then Satan must have still held onto the belief that there are better things than God (again, this is contained in denying God’s Omniscience and asserting that he knows better than God). Pure absurdity. Circular but false. Unyielding to reason absolutely.

He sought respite, which was granted by God. Let’s not forget, God warned Adam and Eve: “And O Adam, reside you and your mate in the paradise, and eat from it as you both wish, and do not come near this tree, else you will be of those who have wronged.” (Quran 7:19)

So the aforementioned paragraph conveys what happened when God questioned Satan the first time round. Let’s look at what happened to Adam when God questioned it, the first time round:

18. …and their Lord called to them: “Did I not prohibit you from that tree, and tell you that the devil is your clear enemy?” They said: “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves and if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us, then we will be of the losers!” (Quran 7:22-23)

This is perhaps the key distinction between Adam and Satan. Whilst Satan rejected God’s command the first time (did not yield to Adam) and the second time (asked for respite despite being commanded to descend), Adam and Eve did the opposite. They recognised that without God’s Forgiveness (Root of this word is: Gh-Fa-Ra = protect, cover over, hide, shield, helmet, forgive, pardon, to ask for protection/forgiveness)
 and Providence (Root of this word is Ra-Ha-Miim = Rahima – He favored, benefited, pardoned, or forgave him. To love, have tenderness, mercy, pity, forgiveness, have all that is required for exercising beneficence.¨Tarhamu – He had mercy, pity, or compassion on him; he pitied or compassionated him much.¨Arham – Wombs (singular) womb, i.e. place of origin. The receptacle of the young in the belly. ¨Ruhmun – Relationship, i.e. nearness of kin, connection by birth; relationship connecting with an ancestor. A connection or tie of relationship.¨Rahman – it is active participle noun in the measure of fa’lan which conveys the idea of fullness and extensiveness.¨Rahim – it is in the measure of fa’il which denotes the idea of constant repetition and giving.
they would be of the losers (those that contribute to the maximum good with less willingness) they would be of the losers.

So whilst Satan sought respite instead of descending immediately when commanded, Adam and Eve sought forgiveness for their first disobedience. They did not reject the second command (which to my understanding appears to apply to both Adam, Eve and Satan) The command was:

19. “Descend; for you are enemies to one another; and on the earth you will have residence and provisions until the appointed time.” (Quran 7:24)

So Satan had rejected God twice, whilst Adam and Eve had rejected God once. Adam and Eve sought God’s Forgiveness and Providence whilst Satan sought respite.

“So, the devil caused them to slip from it, and it brought them out from what they were in, and We said: “Descend; for you are enemies to one another; and on the earth you will have residence and provisions until the appointed time.” (Quran 2:36)

20. Adam then received words from his Lord, so It forgave him; It is the Forgiver, the Merciful (Quran 2:37)
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Nov 20, 2018 6:04 pm

This is a Jewish myth we are discussing.

You do know that the Jews do not see a fall in Eden. Right?

You do know that they see an elevation of man in Eden. Right?

So the morality is quite different between the Christian erroneous take and the more intelligent Jewish take.

To Jews, A & E did the right and moral thing. To wrong headed Christians, they did the immoral thing.

Do you see man becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil as good or evil?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/ ... -theodicy/

‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Certainly real » Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:25 pm

Greatest I am wrote:This is a Jewish myth we are discussing.

You do know that the Jews do not see a fall in Eden. Right?

You do know that they see an elevation of man in Eden. Right?

So the morality is quite different between the Christian erroneous take and the more intelligent Jewish take.

To Jews, A & E did the right and moral thing. To wrong headed Christians, they did the immoral thing.

Do you see man becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil as good or evil?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/ ... -theodicy/

‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

Regards
DL


My source for the story of Adam and Eve is the Quran. According to the Quran, Satan chose what was absurd (it chose what was against its best interest), it sought respite (again, further against what was in its best interest). Adam and Eve were lacking. They were susceptible to Satan's deception. The result of Satan deceiving them was that they allowed absurdity to enter into their hearts (they went against God's command. They sufficiently abandoned the primary layer). As a result, Adam and Eve fell because they were at fault. They fell because they were lacking.

The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil. Only when humanity builds character, solidifies reason, can it be suitable for Heaven. Of course, at the same time, only when humanity disregards reason and morality (destroys character) does what is in opposition to the nature of Existence can it be suitable for Hell. Some of us become suitable for Heaven and some of us become suitable for Hell. This is entirely dependent on whether we increase in/become good or increase in/become evil.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Greatest I am » Thu Nov 22, 2018 8:52 pm

Certainly real wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:This is a Jewish myth we are discussing.

You do know that the Jews do not see a fall in Eden. Right?

You do know that they see an elevation of man in Eden. Right?

So the morality is quite different between the Christian erroneous take and the more intelligent Jewish take.

To Jews, A & E did the right and moral thing. To wrong headed Christians, they did the immoral thing.

Do you see man becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil as good or evil?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/ ... -theodicy/

‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

Regards
DL


My source for the story of Adam and Eve is the Quran. According to the Quran, Satan chose what was absurd (it chose what was against its best interest), it sought respite (again, further against what was in its best interest). Adam and Eve were lacking. They were susceptible to Satan's deception. The result of Satan deceiving them was that they allowed absurdity to enter into their hearts (they went against God's command. They sufficiently abandoned the primary layer). As a result, Adam and Eve fell because they were at fault. They fell because they were lacking.

The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil. Only when humanity builds character, solidifies reason, can it be suitable for Heaven. Of course, at the same time, only when humanity disregards reason and morality (destroys character) does what is in opposition to the nature of Existence can it be suitable for Hell. Some of us become suitable for Heaven and some of us become suitable for Hell. This is entirely dependent on whether we increase in/become good or increase in/become evil.


On Eden. I do not care what your version is as the original shows a better ideology.
Even the less good Christian view call's Adam's sin a happy fault so what you see as a lack is to even them a benefit.

"The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil."

I agree and have a partial respect for Islam as I understand that Muslims are to face evil down and purify their thinking by doing so. IOW Muslims are to fight their impulses to do evil down. An example of this might be a thief who will stare at what he covets till he masters his coveting and drives it out of his character.

I have a caveat on this so answer carefully. Is that the way you see Muslims building their character and separate their evil impulses from their good characters?

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Certainly real » Sat Nov 24, 2018 11:08 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Certainly real wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:This is a Jewish myth we are discussing.

You do know that the Jews do not see a fall in Eden. Right?

You do know that they see an elevation of man in Eden. Right?

So the morality is quite different between the Christian erroneous take and the more intelligent Jewish take.

To Jews, A & E did the right and moral thing. To wrong headed Christians, they did the immoral thing.

Do you see man becoming as Gods in the knowing of good and evil as good or evil?

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/ ... -theodicy/

‘Instead of the Fall of man (in the sense of humanity as a whole), Judaism preaches the Rise of man: and instead of Original Sin, it stresses Original Virtue, the beneficent hereditary influence of righteous ancestors upon their descendants’.

Regards
DL


My source for the story of Adam and Eve is the Quran. According to the Quran, Satan chose what was absurd (it chose what was against its best interest), it sought respite (again, further against what was in its best interest). Adam and Eve were lacking. They were susceptible to Satan's deception. The result of Satan deceiving them was that they allowed absurdity to enter into their hearts (they went against God's command. They sufficiently abandoned the primary layer). As a result, Adam and Eve fell because they were at fault. They fell because they were lacking.

The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil. Only when humanity builds character, solidifies reason, can it be suitable for Heaven. Of course, at the same time, only when humanity disregards reason and morality (destroys character) does what is in opposition to the nature of Existence can it be suitable for Hell. Some of us become suitable for Heaven and some of us become suitable for Hell. This is entirely dependent on whether we increase in/become good or increase in/become evil.


On Eden. I do not care what your version is as the original shows a better ideology.
Even the less good Christian view call's Adam's sin a happy fault so what you see as a lack is to even them a benefit.

"The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil."

I agree and have a partial respect for Islam as I understand that Muslims are to face evil down and purify their thinking by doing so. IOW Muslims are to fight their impulses to do evil down. An example of this might be a thief who will stare at what he covets till he masters his coveting and drives it out of his character.

I have a caveat on this so answer carefully. Is that the way you see Muslims building their character and separate their evil impulses from their good characters?

Regards
DL


My understanding of building character is pretty much what Aristotle's virtue ethics proposes. So all virtues are somewhere in the middle of two relevant extremes. For example: Cowardice--bravery--recklessness. Evil is anything that is in excess of virtue. So when an action/inaction amounts cowardice or recklessness, these are both instances of evil. The farther away the act is in relation to bravery, the greater its evil. The same applies to all other virtues.

The main thing I'd add to this which I think is immensely beneficial in relation to achieving virtue, is the effective acknowledgment and reverence of God. With reverence being appropriately an adequately in place, I think one is more likely to be virtuous.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Greatest I am » Sun Nov 25, 2018 7:04 pm

Certainly real wrote:
My source for the story of Adam and Eve is the Quran. According to the Quran, Satan chose what was absurd (it chose what was against its best interest), it sought respite (again, further against what was in its best interest). Adam and Eve were lacking. They were susceptible to Satan's deception. The result of Satan deceiving them was that they allowed absurdity to enter into their hearts (they went against God's command. They sufficiently abandoned the primary layer). As a result, Adam and Eve fell because they were at fault. They fell because they were lacking.

The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil. Only when humanity builds character, solidifies reason, can it be suitable for Heaven. Of course, at the same time, only when humanity disregards reason and morality (destroys character) does what is in opposition to the nature of Existence can it be suitable for Hell. Some of us become suitable for Heaven and some of us become suitable for Hell. This is entirely dependent on whether we increase in/become good or increase in/become evil.


On Eden. I do not care what your version is as the original shows a better ideology.
Even the less good Christian view call's Adam's sin a happy fault so what you see as a lack is to even them a benefit.

"The point of this life is to build character, solidify reason the way it ought to be solidified and separate good from evil."

I agree and have a partial respect for Islam as I understand that Muslims are to face evil down and purify their thinking by doing so. IOW Muslims are to fight their impulses to do evil down. An example of this might be a thief who will stare at what he covets till he masters his coveting and drives it out of his character.

I have a caveat on this so answer carefully. Is that the way you see Muslims building their character and separate their evil impulses from their good characters?

Regards
DL[/quote]

My understanding of building character is pretty much what Aristotle's virtue ethics proposes. So all virtues are somewhere in the middle of two relevant extremes. For example: Cowardice--bravery--recklessness. Evil is anything that is in excess of virtue. So when an action/inaction amounts cowardice or recklessness, these are both instances of evil. The farther away the act is in relation to bravery, the greater its evil. The same applies to all other virtues.

The main thing I'd add to this which I think is immensely beneficial in relation to achieving virtue, is the effective acknowledgment and reverence of God. With reverence being appropriately an adequately in place, I think one is more likely to be virtuous.[/quote]

Sure, but is virtue created by a false belief living up to the notions of living a brave life?

I don't think so as I see that self-deception as hypocritical and cowardly.

That aside.

I like your reply as it suits my view of spiritual growth. Especially your, "So when an action/inaction amounts cowardice or recklessness, these are both instances of evil."

I see most Muslims as brave for facing the sins and staring them down, so to speak.

Now for my caveat.

In sexual matters, I see Muslims as cowards as they do not face such sins and stare them down till they are no longer a sinful issue in the minds of Muslim men.

Can you tell me why Muslims men have that double standard that makes them look like such moral cowards?

This link speaks to some of those issues and I would add the fact that Muslim men have become baby sitters of their own women by telling them how to dress and veil themselves, even to the point in Saudi Arabia where the men have become unpaid chauffeurs to women.

I see the author of this link and his murder as a disservice to Islam and not a benefit. All Muslim men should watch this and learn from it. Not try to destroy it. All religionists should view such material.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGtQvGGY4S4

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Certainly real » Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:39 am

Sure, but is virtue created by a false belief living up to the notions of living a brave life?

The definition of the word brave necessarily entails that it is something good. Either one is actually brave or their understanding of what amounts to bravery is wrong. If one has a false belief with regards to what bravery is (as in perhaps they mistake recklessness for bravery) then this is not a case of virtue being created at all. This is a case of poor reasoning that has lead to what is other than virtue. Virtue is never the product of "a false belief living up to the notions of living a brave life". Virtue is the product of sound reasoning. It is something that is expected to be displayed, demonstrated and outputted often of a free-willed agent that has matured effectively in terms of reason.

Can you tell me why Muslims men have that double standard that makes them look like such moral cowards?


My definition of "muslim" is not necessarily someone who reads or believes in the Quran. My definition of muslim is someone who upholds reason with sufficient accuracy such that they acknowledge that Existence/God is Perfect and as a logical consequence of this, they are sufficiently morally virtuous.

In all cases, when a rational being upholds reason sufficiently and does not embrace absurdity in favour of rationality, then I define this being as being a muslim regardless of what religious scripture they read or don't read. When this fails (absurdity is favoured over reason) then this being is less of a muslim. When this rejection of reason in favour of absurdity is sufficient, then such a being is evil.

So with the "muslim" men that you mentoned:
Can you tell me why Muslims men have that double standard that makes them look like such moral cowards?

This link speaks to some of those issues and I would add the fact that Muslim men have become baby sitters of their own women by telling them how to dress and veil themselves, even to the point in Saudi Arabia where the men have become unpaid chauffeurs to women.


Whenever you witness absurdity like the example you give in relation to an individual as having double standards or being irrational towards another being (being oppressive in the example that you gave (provided that those woman are unhappy with the way their men treat them)), then it is necessarily the case that such beings do not acknowledge that Existence is Perfect. If they did, they'd be so much more preoccupied with upholding reason that such absurd acts towards their women (again, provided that this is against what their women desire) would be impossible of them.

I would define any being that continuously and consistently chooses absurdity instead of reason as a "kafir". This is the term the Quran uses to describe those who reject reason. Any instance of rejecting reason is evil. The greater the rejection, the more potent the evil.
Certainly real
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: Morality derived from the story of Adam, Eve and Satan

Postby Greatest I am » Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:40 pm

I did not see an answer to my question and doubt that I can get one.

We do not seem to be talking of the same double moral standard at all.

Thanks for the reply.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:07 pm


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users