本帖最後由 dye 於 2010/7/22 12:09 編輯
Which is why I said,
"The idea is that people should pay "reasonable" effort in keeping others safe from harm. By reasonableness, you consider
1) Whether the harm is foreseeable. People are expected to act in a reasonable manner.(In the case of God, however, it is totally forseen)
2) The degree of the foreseeable harm. If it result in death or injury, the responsibility is high. (In the case of God, it is a couple billion death at least)
3) The price of the preventive measure (In the case of God, the price is little)
4) The ability of the defendent to pay the price (In the case of God, the ability is infinite)
Other factors to keep in mind:
5) The forseeable capacity of the plaintiff. The less the capacity, the higher the responsibility (In the case of God, the capcity of human is suppose to be none before eating from the Tree)"
ALL of which is in relation to the case of God. THEREFORE, the warning is irrelvent. THEREFORE,
"As a matter of fact, God has demonstrated what he should have done to the tree of knowlegde. If he has protected fruit from the tree of knowlegde in the same way as he has protected the tree of life after the fall, billion will be saved."
It is not only about the tree being there, it is the whole circumstances because everything is "manufactured" by God. (Including the serpent)
Something you should understand as an adult, "The greater the power, the greater the responsibility" Hence, infinite power breeds infinite responsibility. |
2010/7/22 10:21
| 
2010/7/22 12:31
|