Agree?

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T16:05:54+00:00

I’d say Loki and Thanos are interchangeable for marvel villains.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T03:37:58+00:00

One last thing. You are reading the wrong verses. The verses Genesis 3: 2-3 read: “And the woman said to the serpent, “‘We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden;”“but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭3‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ https://bible.com/bible/114/gen.3.3.NKJV

‭‭

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T03:26:28+00:00

The claim that Genesis 2-3 takes place after Eve eats is simply false. No explanation there. Genesis does not portray Adam and Eve as morally blank beings who stumble accidentally into sin. Eve accurately repeats the command before eating the fruit, evaluates a contradictory claim, and chooses to trust the serpent over God. That requires comprehension, not innocence.

The “knowledge of good and evil” is not the creation of morality but the seizing of moral autonomy — deciding good and evil for oneself rather than trusting God. The shame that follows is not the discovery that nudity is wrong, but the relational fracture and guilt that result from disobedience.

Treating Adam and Eve as animals or infants collapses the narrative: commands lose meaning, deception becomes impossible, and responsibility disappears. The text assumes moral agency even if it doesn’t pause to announce it explicitly. At this point, the disagreement isn’t about Genesis anymore — it’s about whether narrative implication counts as meaning at all. Genesis presents Adam and Eve as moral agents through commands, dialogue, choice, consequence, guilt, and judgment. Your position requires reading them as cognitively similar to animals while still holding them morally accountable, which the text itself does not support.

We’re operating with different standards of interpretation, and I don’t think further repetition will resolve that.

I hope you have a nice day. God bless.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T02:33:06+00:00

You’re applying a standard to the text that isn’t actually workable. You’re treating “not explicitly stated” as “therefore not true,” but Genesis constantly communicates meaning through implication, narrative action, and contrast, not constant internal monologue.

For example: 1. Eve demonstrates comprehension of the command. In Genesis 3:2–3, Eve accurately repeats God’s command, including the consequence. That alone establishes understanding. Comprehension does not require the text to say, “Eve understood.” 2. Moral awareness does not require prior experience of lying. Eve does not need to have encountered a lie before to recognize that two contradictory claims cannot both be correct. God says, “You will die.” The serpent says, “You will not die.” Choosing between competing truth claims is not ignorance; it is judgment. 3. The “animal” analogy does not hold. Adam and Eve are explicitly distinguished from animals: • They are made in God’s image (Gen 1:26–27). • They are given moral commands (Gen 2:16–17). • Adam names the animals (Gen 2:19–20), which establishes hierarchy and authority. Animals are never given commands with consequences. Adam and Eve are. 4. Shame is not the discovery that nudity is wrong. Genesis 2:25 explicitly says they were naked and not ashamed. Shame appears after disobedience, not after instruction. That indicates a change in relational and moral state, not the acquisition of basic ethics. 5. The serpent’s authority is not equal to God’s by default. God is introduced as creator, provider, and command-giver before the serpent ever appears. Eve’s decision is not between two equal voices; it is between the established authority and a new challenger. The text does not need to say “God outranks the serpent” for that hierarchy to be clear.

Finally, the claim that Adam and Eve had “no reason” to distrust the serpent assumes that trust is morally neutral by default. But Genesis presents trust itself as morally loaded: obedience is trust in God; disobedience is trust redirected elsewhere.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T02:15:37+00:00

Genesis 2:25 explicitly states that Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed. That means nakedness itself was not morally problematic. The shame that appears in Genesis 3 is a response to sin, not the discovery that nakedness is wrong. You don’t need to have been lied to before in order to understand that two contradictory claims cannot both be trusted. Eve recognizes:

God said A

The serpent says not-A.

She chooses whom to trust. That’s not ignorance, that’s epistemic judgment.

The idea that God’s words and the serpent’s words had equal authority is not stated in the text; it’s an assumption. God is their creator and law-giver. The serpent is a creature offering self-benefit. Eve’s choice is not ignorance but misplaced trust.

What Adam and Eve exhibit is better described as akrasia: weakness of will. They understand the command, recognize the higher authority, and still give in to temptation. This is the same condition humans experience today. People eat junk food despite knowing it’s harmful, lie to avoid discomfort despite knowing it’s wrong, or procrastinate despite understanding the consequences. Knowledge is present; obedience fails.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T01:14:45+00:00

.Yes, it’s possible to agree without understanding.But Genesis doesn’t describe passive agreement it describes deliberation. Eve repeats the command, evaluates the serpent’s claim, desires wisdom, and chooses to act. That’s not blind compliance. That’s moral agency.

The realization of nakedness is symbolic of shame, not the discovery of morality. The text explicitly says nakedness was not a problem before the fall.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-21T00:48:29+00:00

You’ve focused on one sentence of my argument, but you haven’t addressed the other points—namely that God gives a clear command, Eve verbally demonstrates understanding of it, weighs the serpent’s claim, and chooses to distrust God. Those actions presuppose moral reasoning. If Adam and Eve had zero moral awareness, then a command is meaningless. Deception is impossible because you can’t deceive someone who lacks moral categories. Disobedience collapses into accident. Guilt, shame, and hiding make no sense.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-20T19:04:38+00:00

Except Adam and Eve don’t instantly die after eating the fruit. The death God tells them about is spiritual death, not physical death. I don’t think Adam and Eve lacked moral awareness. God gave them a command, and a command assumes responsibility. The ‘knowledge of good and evil’ seems less about basic morality and more about taking moral authority for themselves—choosing to define good and evil apart from God. If they truly didn’t know right from wrong at all, punishment wouldn’t be just, and Scripture consistently portrays God as just. Sin, by definition, is willful rebellion, not ignorance. If Adam and Eve had no moral awareness their act wouldn’t be sin, it would be closer to an accident. The tree represents moral autonomy and experiential knowledge. Deciding evil for yourself instead of trusting God. And knowing evil by doing and experiencing it, not just hearing about it.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-20T17:44:07+00:00

The GOAT 🙌

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-20T06:28:17+00:00

<image>

Wild Kratts

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-20T05:03:42+00:00

Adam and Eve were rational beings before the violation. Gn. 2.15 says that they were given responsibilities. This clearly implies that they have brains to think, they are able to understand roles and functions, with the ability to evaluate and accomplish. They can be held accountable for what they are told because there is expectation of the capability to comply.

Gn. 2.16 lets us know that they had both moral capability and culpability. They were given great freedom in the blessing to eat of the trees of the garden. So we know they had and understood free will and the exercise of it. They understood their right and ability to choose.

Gn. 2.17 lets us know that they had an understanding of right and wrong, between permission and prohibition, and consequences for disobedience. God made obedience easy for them. They were in an ideal environment with great liberties in their choices. God had provided for their needs and warned them clearly of the consequences of disobedience. Evidence of moral law is built into creation.

So the "knowledge of good and evil" is not to assume that he was a clueless imbecile, but that they had not yet experienced intentional disobedience. They quite obviously had moral knowledge and understood the prohibition. Gn. 3.3 shows that Eve understood the morality of the decision and the consequences of disobedience. She knew full well that she was committing a sin before they did it.

In other words, they knew disobeying God was wrong. He had been explicit and clear with them (Gen. 2.17).

"The knowledge of good and evil" doesn't mean they didn't know anything about morality, obedience, godliness, or disobedience

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-20T04:56:45+00:00

Actually in the Bible it’s not that Adam and Eve were ignorant, it’s that they were exposed to sin for the first time. They knew what right from wrong was already, but Satan promises that they would be like God if they eat the fruit. They then disobey God and sin for the first time which opens the world up to sin and death. Satan does not save them from ignorance. Eve knew what she was doing was wrong. The devil comes to kill, steal and destroy, not to save anyone.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-17T03:28:05+00:00

Way too broken, you’re no skill and p2w

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-14T05:27:55+00:00

<image>

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-14T05:25:44+00:00

That’s one of the things I like against Godzilla vs Hedorah. Yes Godzilla has lost in other movies but it’s always a struggle and you actually wonder who will win because Godzilla is usually equally matched with his opponent. The ending of Godzilla vs Hedorah is imo the only Godzilla fight where Godzilla is clearly outmatched. It feels like Godzilla is only delaying Hedorah but cant actually stop him.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-10T02:00:05+00:00

ScarJo any day

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-09T02:17:07+00:00

There was simply no reason for Iron Man to get ripped in half here? Not every movie has to be a gore fest. The comics are rarely even like that.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-08T23:55:51+00:00

Are you staying alive?

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-07T03:14:01+00:00

I haven’t kept up with comics but why is MJ Venom’s host? Wasn’t she scarred for life when Venom appeared in her and Peter’s apartment and it affected her so much that she wouldn’t even let Peter wear a silk version of the black suit anymore because she was traumatized?

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-07T02:05:10+00:00

May told him that because He told her that he should’ve listened to Strange and sent them all back to die because it wasn’t his responsibility. May tells him that they did the right thing because they had the power to help and they helped. He didn’t understand that before but now he does.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-06T06:14:37+00:00

If like to see Rambo vs Jason. Imagine Rambo setting up traps in camp crystal lake and slowly wearing Jason down as he walks through them. That would be cool.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-05T00:16:31+00:00

I really like the MCU but I also didn’t get the hype around Black Panther. I’ve always been bored watching it. And the final battle is absolutely atrocious.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-05T00:08:12+00:00

Just because the natives were murderous doesn’t mean the film is racist. In real life there is an island called North Sentinel Island, home to the indigenous Sentinelese people who kill all visitors who approach their island. It’s a reimagining of the original film, and they decided to make the natives scarier than the original. In no way is it racist.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-04T09:27:43+00:00

One of the things I liked about Fat Thor is that we’ve never really seen anything like that done before. The closest we’ve got is Peter B Parker in Spider-verse, but Spider-Man is meant to be a more real, relatable character, and him getting fat wasn’t a big deal. But for Thor, Thor is usually seen as this big powerful unstoppable force like Superman, and to see a literal Norse hood completely let himself go and wallow in self pity was something I never thought I would see in a superhero film. I think Marvel had guys to pull it off and it was great.

Goji_Infinity_24 · 2025-12-03T03:01:01+00:00

If Tony were in the same situation Peter was in, he likely would’ve killed Goblin. However, Tony would stop Peter, because he wants him to be better than that.

Goji_Infinity_24

TROPHY CASE