Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

"I can't [bake a cake for your gay wedding], it's against my religion."

Weren't people saying that that was unreasonable?

What am I missing?

Basically the argument there is "You are not following my religion, or are living against my beliefs. Therefore, no cake for you!"

Or another way, "you can't have my cake because its against my religion"

Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?

I'm making a philosophy argument. Please stick to the topic and not make it personal thanks.

I would say philosophically people should not be forced to do anything.
As a policy I am completely supportive of current federal and state laws (except Oklahoma, they are flat)

In the inverse why should someone be forced to bake a cake for people they don't like. Why should a baker be forced to make a cake for NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

You'll have to ask them. I assuem it's their personal prejudices in operation.

A theologian would be able to shed more light on the doctrinal aspects of the case.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

You'll have to ask them. I assuem it's their personal prejudices in operation.

.

Way to play the role of there Mod. And we were all getting along so well. Even had a rare nonhostile philosophy argument going.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

I will just leave this here... because you have to obey your holy book, right?

I do.

Forced abortion by priests
Numbers 5:11-31

Irrelevant. Old testament law I do not have to follow. See that all the laws in Leviticus and where you decide to arbitrarily pull them from begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel.' " I am not an Israelite, I am a Gentile. This Law is null and designed for a group of people who came thousands of years before me.

slavery approved in New Testament
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18

Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21

Jesus saying things(supposedly)
Obey the laws of the old testament
Matthew 5:17-read the old testament and realize why this is horrible, unless you enjoy a good stoning

We are gentiles, these laws are null.

Thought Crime
Matthew 5:28

God is incapable of doing evil. Even the mere thought of evil is outside his person. If you have that thought, you have sinned against him and must repent.

Encourages mutilation
matthew 5:28-29

I can't refute this. If something is causing you to sin, remove that thing. Its probably more figurative than it is literal.

Keep your religion to yourself
Matthew 6:6

No, keep it to yourself if the only purpose of showing it is to show you are a religious person.
Read 2 Corinthians 4.

My point is, if you want to believe in something absurd and transparently

Back at it again with the religion bashing.

There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.

You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery. What the ? You believe in a god, and you believe that god is incapable of doing evil. Anyone who encourages slavery in my book is evil, and I would like to see why you believe that is not the case.
Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument
I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.
Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?

All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.

Why?

If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

Maybe the Devil created them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the Devil created them.

but the devil in your theology is the creation of yahweh, and since he is omnipotent and omniscient, he created him specifically to make parasites in the future.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

How is that question relevant at all to the the government forcing privately owned businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Maybe the Devil created them.

That would put the Devil on the same power level as God.

Which kind of defeats the purpose of God being all-powerful. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure it says that God created all life and he must also have saved these parasites during the Great Flood.

 Frazzled wrote:

So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?

I'm making a philosophy argument. Please stick to the topic and not make it personal thanks.

I would say philosophically people should not be forced to do anything.
As a policy I am completely supportive of current federal and state laws (except Oklahoma, they are flat)

In the inverse why should someone be forced to bake a cake for people they don't like. Why should a baker be forced to make a cake for NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes)

My argument is also philosophical, I simply disagree with you where exactly along the chain one freedom overrides the other. For example - nobody is forcing a baker to make a cake for anyone they don't like, because nobody is forcing them to be a baker and nobody is forcing them to offer that product for sale.

Once they do, however, the right of any given individual to be treated equally in their day-to-day life overrides any personal feelings the baker may have.

You can choose not to make wedding cakes. You can choose not to put a sign in the window offering to decorate wedding cakes with a customer-specified message. However, once you do either of those things(ie, offer a product or service to the public), your personal opinion of any given customer, provided what they ask of you is within the law, no longer has any bearing, you should serve all of the public.

My point in making that comment was not to "make it personal", it was to illustrate the logical outcome of the philosophical position you're taking - it applies just as well to schools, or employment, or any number of other public spheres, as it does to any number of other prejudices like race and religion. Business doesn't get a pass.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

apparently some people in this thread with one religion backing them think it's a good idea to be able to deny service based on their religion. They'll rejoice in that idea until the other shoe drops.

Just to pick on frazz for a minute as my way of welcoming him back, and meaning no offense. Some people want this for their society, not frazz specifically.

He leaves the church of the weenier dog and on his way home he stops at 7/11 to pick up some beans & franks, and some beer. the clerk refuses to sell these item to him because the clerk has a deeply held belief that anyone with a weenier dog is gay.

The next 2 stores won't sell those items because their muslims and won't sell beer to people, even though it's on sale in their store.

the next store won't even let his weenier dog in the store, so of course no weenier dog loving person would shop there.

the next store is being staffed by a vegan and not only won't sell the hotdogs, but suggests frazz set his dogs free.

so finally after crossing the state line and 30 stores later frazz is finally able to buy his beans and franks.

Why, because religious freedom.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.

Good for you then.

You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery.

Excuse me?
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21

Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument

And I can't argue that he isn't Evil without using circular reasoning because I can only reference my Bible or by saying "You can't understand it, not yet."

I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.

I consider everything you do or think has moral standing. In which case, we are all evil.

Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?

You don't. Isn't free will a great thing?

All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.

Really? Is the concept of a deep relationship between two people of the same sex only confined to a homosexual relationship? Is the concept of brotherly or sisterly bonds so foreign these days?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

How is that question relevant at all to the the government forcing privately owned businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will?

It's relevant to the current discussion of the philosophy of the Bible. If God is capable of "evil" then that makes him no better than humanity. This in turn means that we should not regard his laws and wishes above the wellbeing of our fellow humans as he is not truly a higher power who wishes to look after us.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.

I am no scholar, but that is my view.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm torn on these religious freedom laws. They're pretty transparently the states involved saying "we agree that gay people are bad," but there are some interesting questions of the rights of self expression here.

I think that "public accommodations," meaning those businesses that are open to the general public and serve anybody with cash, should not be allowed to discriminate on demographics (sex, race, orientation, religions, etc.) If you run a pizza place, you're selling pizza to anybody that has the cash.

However, professionals and artists have, and should have, a lot more say in what clients they select or what projects they take on.

The question becomes: when is a business a public accommodation, such that it must serve anybody, and when is it a professional or artistic service such that clients select it because of a particular style or specialty.

What I'm getting it is that while all people have the right to enter into commerce, you also cannot tell people to use their skills in a way that they do not care to.

This right here.

As long as the person isn't part of the statelocal 'protected class'... businesses have the right to refuse service.

In the case of the baker or pizza joint... anyone can come through their door and purchase their products.

However, they shouldn't be *forced* to cater a gay wedding. That's asinine.

The way I look at it, I think it's silly... those businesses are losing a potential transaction and the public at large should be free to express their dispproval over such actions via protest/boycott or to simply take their business somewhere else.

But, to get the state to force you to do it? Man... that's dangerous territory there...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

apparently some people in this thread with one religion backing them think it's a good idea to be able to deny service based on their religion. They'll rejoice in that idea until the other shoe drops.

Just to pick on frazz for a minute as my way of welcoming him back, and meaning no offense. Some people want this for their society, not frazz specifically.

He leaves the church of the weenier dog and on his way home he stops at 7/11 to pick up some beans & franks, and some beer. the clerk refuses to sell these item to him because the clerk has a deeply held belief that anyone with a weenier dog is gay.

The next 2 stores won't sell those items because their muslims and won't sell beer to people, even though it's on sale in their store.

the next store won't even let his weenier dog in the store, so of course no weenier dog loving person would shop there.

the next store is being staffed by a vegan and not only won't sell the hotdogs, but suggests frazz set his dogs free.

so finally after crossing the state line and 30 stores later frazz is finally able to buy his beans and franks.

Why, because religious freedom.

If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.

Why?

I don't want to celebrate sin nor help someone celebrate sin.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.

Good for you then.

You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery.

Excuse me?
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21

Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument

And I can't argue that he isn't Evil without using circular reasoning because I can only reference my Bible or by saying "You can't understand it, not yet."

I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.

I consider everything you do or think has moral standing. In which case, we are all evil.

Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?

You don't. Isn't free will a great thing?

All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.

Really? Is the concept of a deep relationship between two people of the same sex only confined to a homosexual relationship? Is the concept of brotherly or sisterly bonds so foreign these days?

1. Except the bible also tells slaves to obey the people who own them.
2. So what you are saying is that- you have to believe the bible is authentic and ignore all the parts of it that show evil things that the god does, which is extremely unlikely given what we know from historical records, or that- you cant understand it? I can understand it pretty well, thats why I don't believe it.
3. Quick question. How are thoughts ever immoral? Explain how a thought leads to tangible problems, and don't say something like "well they are more likely to do something if they think about it" because the moral issue is following through, not thinking.
4. No, because apparently according to most theologies if you dont worship them, you end up being tortured for all eternity. Saying "you send yourself to be tortured" is like saying "you decided to get killed instead of giving the man your wallet, it isnt the muggers fault!"
5. Please explain how some of the pretty obviously homosexual stuff is just brotherly/sisterly love, when it says she loves a women like a man loves a woman? Also, still haven't addressed the historical problems.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.

Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?

Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.

Why?

I don't want to celebrate sin nor help someone celebrate sin.

The bible in some cases celebrates homosexuality. I am an atheist. If I took the bible as the word of god brought through fallible writers, I would recognize the homosexual love stories in the bible more than a few isolated rants against homosexuality, especially because homophobia is often associated with homosexual tendencies, and these were mostly celibate men ranting.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.

I am no scholar, but that is my view.

So God created and then allowed evil to exist because a man and a woman ate some fruit. And why is he still punishing us thousands of years later for what this man and woman did? We as humans agreed that reprisals against family members was a bad thing so why hasn't God? Why does God think it is okay to punish us now for things which we had absolutely no way of preventing considering that they happened (going by the Bible timeline rather than science) thousands of years ago?

Also God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, is punishing Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge.
1) Without the knowledge given by the fruit how could Adam and Eve ever conceive of the reasons behind it being forbidden. Yet God punishes them for it. This is like putting someone with no concept of the repercussions of their actions on death row because they didn't realise that pulling the trigger on a gun could kill somebody.
2) God knew that they would eat that fruit but put the tree there anyway. Therefore he put the tree there because he wanted them to eat the fruit so he could punish them. God is a dick.
3) God allowed the serpent into the garden to persuade them to eat the fruit. He already knew the outcome (being all-knowing and such) so yet again, God is a dick.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

How is that question relevant at all to the the government forcing privately owned businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will?

It's relevant to the current discussion of the philosophy of the Bible. If God is capable of "evil" then that makes him no better than humanity. This in turn means that we should not regard his laws and wishes above the wellbeing of our fellow humans as he is not truly a higher power who wishes to look after us.

The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.

Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.

Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:


The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.

Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.

Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.

Good for you then.

You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery.

Excuse me?
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21

Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument

And I can't argue that he isn't Evil without using circular reasoning because I can only reference my Bible or by saying "You can't understand it, not yet."

I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.

I consider everything you do or think has moral standing. In which case, we are all evil.

Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?

You don't. Isn't free will a great thing?

All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.

Really? Is the concept of a deep relationship between two people of the same sex only confined to a homosexual relationship? Is the concept of brotherly or sisterly bonds so foreign these days?

1. Except the bible also tells slaves to obey the people who own them.
2. So what you are saying is that- you have to believe the bible is authentic and ignore all the parts of it that show evil things that the god does, which is extremely unlikely given what we know from historical records, or that- you cant understand it? I can understand it pretty well, thats why I don't believe it.
3. Quick question. How are thoughts ever immoral? Explain how a thought leads to tangible problems, and don't say something like "well they are more likely to do something if they think about it" because the moral issue is following through, not thinking.
4. No, because apparently according to most theologies if you dont worship them, you end up being tortured for all eternity. Saying "you send yourself to be tortured" is like saying "you decided to get killed instead of giving the man your wallet, it isnt the muggers fault!"
5. Please explain how some of the pretty obviously homosexual stuff is just brotherly/sisterly love, when it says she loves a women like a man loves a woman? Also, still haven't addressed the historical problems.

1. Colossians 3:22
2. God cannot be evil. Do you have any proof that he is evil? God is the reason "Good" exists. Satan, the Dragon, the Devil or whatever you want to call him is the reason Evil exists.
3. Because the Bible said so. Yes, that is my only reasoning.
4. You have the free will to make those decisions. He won't stop you if you want to go away from him, but he would love to have you back.
5. Cite some "pretty obvious homosexual stuff"

The gay cake case went to appeal in February but was adjourned until May. The court reconvenes on 9th May.

Peter Tatchell (one of the UKs's foremost gay rights campaigners) now feels he was wrong to support the initial verdict that condemned the bakers for refusing to make the cake. He feels they were not discriminating against the gay customer but against the slogan supporting gay marriage. In other words tha it is a freedom of expression issue.

This is essentially the same position as A Town Called Malus.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.

I am no scholar, but that is my view.

So God created and then allowed evil to exist because a man and a woman ate some fruit. And why is he still punishing us thousands of years later for what this man and women did? We as humans agreed that reprisals against family members was a bad thing so why hasn't God? Why does God think it is okay to punish us now for things which we had absolutely no way of preventing considering that they happened (going by the Bible timeline rather than science) thousands of years ago?

Also God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, is punishing Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge.
1) Without the knowledge given by the fruit how could Adam and Eve ever conceive of the reasons behind it being forbidden. Yet God punishes them for it. This is like putting someone with no concept of the repercussions of their actions on death row because they didn't realise that pulling the trigger on a gun could kill somebody.
2) God knew that they would eat that fruit but put the tree there anyway. Therefore he put the tree there because he wanted them to eat the fruit so he could punish them.
3) God allowed the serpent into the garden to persuade them to eat the fruit. He already knew the outcome (being all-knowing and such) so yet again, God is a dick.

1. They were told not to eat it and they did. God does not mess around.
2. There is a theory that God chooses to know and chooses not to. He asked Abraham what was going on at Sodom and Gammorah when, in his infinite wisdom, power and presence, he could have known himself. I am not God so I can't answer this like you want it to be answered.
3. He did, but again, he gave them a choice. Perhaps he knew the outcome of either choice, but chose not to know the true outcome. Again, I am not God and won't pretend to understand this.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?

Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.

I am no scholar, but that is my view.

So God created and then allowed evil to exist because a man and a woman ate some fruit. And why is he still punishing us thousands of years later for what this man and women did? We as humans agreed that reprisals against family members was a bad thing so why hasn't God? Why does God think it is okay to punish us now for things which we had absolutely no way of preventing considering that they happened (going by the Bible timeline rather than science) thousands of years ago?

Also God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, is punishing Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge.
1) Without the knowledge given by the fruit how could Adam and Eve ever conceive of the reasons behind it being forbidden. Yet God punishes them for it. This is like putting someone with no concept of the repercussions of their actions on death row because they didn't realise that pulling the trigger on a gun could kill somebody.
2) God knew that they would eat that fruit but put the tree there anyway. Therefore he put the tree there because he wanted them to eat the fruit so he could punish them.
3) God allowed the serpent into the garden to persuade them to eat the fruit. He already knew the outcome (being all-knowing and such) so yet again, God is a dick.

4. the punishment for the first sin was to introduce death, jesus died for that sin so we could be forgiven, yet apparently that was a worthless gesture as we still have death.

God tried a universe where adam & eve had listened, I found video proof of it

might be considered by some to be NSFW: