So your says that she didn't have logic? Or was she victim to being a human and failed to use logic ( man that sounds pretty common ) and was inevitably mislead to her destruction.

I said only that she would have been better off not seeking knowledge of good and evil, but rather turning her attention to something else. If not logic, then how about botany, or even better, herpetology?

Why would she need those things being in God presents, In Eden god would of given her any thing should of liked.


We are all born with logic, how do you learn logic? What you can do those is grow and become just through temperance,wisdom,courage. For is to be Virtuous not to act in what is right and oppose what is wrong? ( good and evil )

She wouldn't have got into so much trouble if she studied reptiles.

What would the study of reptiles do? she would learn....

a reptile did not deceive her, it was the devil in the reptile? So how would the knowledge of a reptile help? studying reptiles allows you to not be deceived by a talking one?

I guess I'm just failing to understand, how the your reasoning of studying reptiles would help, I wish you would elaborate how it would of prepared her for a simple problem we all face. Being "human" studying more of logic and ethics I believe would of ebenfited her much more. The problem was that she wasent asking questions..... Am I doing what is right? Why would this snake being going against gods will? Etc. Ethics and logic is never a bad thing or at least I don't believe so can you elaborate why you believe ethics is not the way to go in this instance.

It didn't have to be reptiles. Anything would have been better than what she actually did. Botany, say-so she could at least learn about apple trees.

If we are going to discuss Adam and Eve that would mean to discuss the period of when they were in Eden, which is set up in the Old testiment. So by going off the established text it would seem that if Adam would walk with god in simple conversation it would seem Eve would be able to do the same, So the study of all of these modern ideology's of reptiles and plants would seem to be worthless if she could receive the pure truth of how they worked from the creator. Her act of taking the apple was not an act of misconception, or that of ill informed. It was Merely an act of disobedience, she knew it was wrong and choose to go against gods will. Is that a wrong assumption?

All I pointed out is that she got into bad trouble by doing what she did, and probably nothing would have happened if she had worried about something else. Isn't that true?

I agree. Just with they study of plants and reptiles i wasn't sure where you were going or how that would of helped. Simply worrying about something else would obviously turned her from what she had done . It seems we have strayed from the topic

How would you define a good heart? Would you say eve had a bad heart?

Having a good heart is having good motives. What Kant called, a good will. No idea about Eve.

I dont believe that gets you any where, What is good? all your saying is if your motive is in line with your heart it is good, and i believe that is fallible.

A terrorist believes he is doing good so then is what he is doing good?

I dont believe that gets you any where, What is good? all your saying is if your motive is in line with your heart it is good, and i believe that is fallible.

A terrorist believes he is doing good so then is what he is doing good?

And that is what i pose, What is right simply saying what Kant did does not get any where. Im sure Kant explains him self is much more detail that is a given but what you have brought up is just a circle and goes to no end point on what is good and or right.

Kant's test of the Good Will is the Categorical Imperative. Roughly, could you rationally will that everyone act in this way.

Can you elaborate on that? act in what way?

Am i wrong to say that this defines who we are as a individual, creating are beliefs and the moral code to which we deiced to live to and continuously fail at?, and that some of us are wrong and others right? For if we believed that every body sought to be truly "good" then the world would not be perfect ( i said sought ) but would be striving as a group not as divided nations for the "greater good". This debunks in my opinion that "culture" or "society" defines what good and bad is. Law, revolutions are caused because of a law before it there fore at the begging of time there was a "law" now it comes down to weather you believe that, that law was divinely inspired "perfect", or human inspired "flawed"?


Can we by are self live good life's? Good being ether of the inspired interpretations of the creators of good. I would like to here why one would believe one and why the other is to be wrong.


Or are we at the inner most part of are self do it for its self? Hard question to ask your self.....how much pride do you have?

Well, suppose it is lying because you find it convenient to lie. The question is, would you want everyone to lie just because it is convenient? If the answer is no, then you ought not to lie, since if it is wrong for others to do it, it is also wrong for you to do it.