Free Will

[Neverlandrut]

In a way we've come round to this, Prof.

 

Is ignorance an excuse or not?

Either way, god made man with the capacity to sin, knowing that he would and chose not to prevent it. Either way, it's god's fault. If god is all-knowing/powerful, it was all his doing.

[LifeCycle]

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

 

Ok Prof, let's test your scenario with some questions.

You're positing that Eve (and Adam?) made an... informed ...choice to disobey God, because they already understood good and evil.

 

1.

If physical death didn't come thru the informed disobedience of A&E, was there any physical death in the world, before they disobeyed?

 

2.

If sin didn't come thru their informed disobedience, was there any sin in Eden, before they disobeyed?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

Disobedience to an egomaniac is worthy of accolade to many. In other words, how did they know disobedience was a bad thing? By way of fear by the threat of death? Isn't that how radical (insert religion here) work?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

 

Ok Prof, let's test your scenario with some questions.

You're positing that Eve (and Adam?) made an... informed ...choice to disobey God, because they already understood good and evil.

 

1.

If physical death didn't come thru the informed disobedience of A&E, was there any physical death in the world, before they disobeyed?

 

2.

If sin didn't come thru their informed disobedience, was there any sin in Eden, before they disobeyed?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

No, I'm positing nothing on the viewpoint that Adam and Eve made an informed decision to disobey. 

 

What I put forth is the possibility that sinful motivation was already a part of their nature, given that Eve experienced envy and pride.  This does not mean they understood "sin" or good and evil; the text would suggest they did not until after they had acted upon it.   It simply means that the potential to commit sin was already within them, before they disobeyed.

 

Therefore, I would humbly submit that your questions are based upon a faulty assumption. 

 

 

Ah... so you're positing that Eve couldn't associate the envy and pride she felt with the concepts of sin and good and evil?

 

Which absolves her from making a knowing, premeditated and informed choice?

 

Leaving her innocent of making a knowingly sinful and evil choice to disobey God?

 

Precisely, BAA.  It is my contention that god specifically designed a fool-proof plan to unleash the evil he created by ensuring that Eve, ill-informed as she was, would act upon the nature of sin she already carried, commit the "sin" and be a perfect "patsy" for god to blame.  This is why god was so ruthless in cursing her; because he wanted to make sure everyone knew that it was her "fault", while simultaneously covering up his own nefarious designs.

 

In essence, it was a set-up from the start.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

In a way we've come round to this, Prof.

 

Is ignorance an excuse or not?

Apparently not, in god's eyes.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

I can see where you and I are diverging Prof.

 

You are adding possibilities to the Genesis narrative... possibilities that only make sense in your knowledgeable and informed frame of reference.

 

I'm confining myself to what the text says and no more.

I'm sticking to Adam's total innocence, because that's what in scripture.  I'm not exploring what God could or should have done.  Only to what it says there, the internal logic of that and no more.  This is why we are disagreeing on what being informed means.  According to Genesis Adam was innocent.  Therefore, his condition of innocence HAS to stand and stay unchanged in any explanation or argument based only on the text.  

 

By introducing new elements into the argument Prof, you are changing things from their original condition.

I don't agree with that.  We can't fully  understand and appreciate how unworkable the Fall really is unless we examine it in it's original form.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

This is a fair point, BAA.  I did bring unnecessary confusion by adding conjecture into the mix.  I appreciate you pointing it out to me. 

 

However, if we are going strictly off of what the scripture says, then I have to argue against Adam and Eve ever being innocent in the first place.  As I've said before in other threads, Eve's motivation for eating the fruit was pride mixed with envy.  It would seem to me that she would be unable to experience those emotions if she were truly innocent.  Thus, I suspect that she had the capacity for sin even before her run-in with the serpent.  Based on this, I would hypothesize that the "fall" didn't cause the "sin nature"; rather the "sin nature" caused the "fall"... just as god planned.

 

 

Ok Prof, let's test your scenario with some questions.

You're positing that Eve (and Adam?) made an... informed ...choice to disobey God, because they already understood good and evil.

 

1.

If physical death didn't come thru the informed disobedience of A&E, was there any physical death in the world, before they disobeyed?

 

2.

If sin didn't come thru their informed disobedience, was there any sin in Eden, before they disobeyed?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

No, I'm positing nothing on the viewpoint that Adam and Eve made an informed decision to disobey. 

 

What I put forth is the possibility that sinful motivation was already a part of their nature, given that Eve experienced envy and pride.  This does not mean they understood "sin" or good and evil; the text would suggest they did not until after they had acted upon it.   It simply means that the potential to commit sin was already within them, before they disobeyed.

 

Therefore, I would humbly submit that your questions are based upon a faulty assumption. 

 

 

Ah... so you're positing that Eve couldn't associate the envy and pride she felt with the concepts of sin and good and evil?

 

Which absolves her from making a knowing, premeditated and informed choice?

 

Leaving her innocent of making a knowingly sinful and evil choice to disobey God?

 

Precisely, BAA.  It is my contention that god specifically designed a fool-proof plan to unleash the evil he created by ensuring that Eve, ill-informed as she was, would act upon the nature of sin she already carried, commit the "sin" and be a perfect "patsy" for god to blame.  This is why god was so ruthless in cursing her; because he wanted to make sure everyone knew that it was her "fault", while simultaneously covering up his own nefarious designs.

 

In essence, it was a set-up from the start.

 

 

Playing devil's advocate Prof...

 

Would a fully informed Eve have been capable of resisting temptation?

[bornagainathiest]

And what would a totally innocent Eve have done?

[bornagainathiest]

Prof, I contend that it doesn't matter if Eve is fully informed, partially informed or totally innocent.

 

The outcome is still the same.

 

Therefore what's the point of a fool-proof plan?  It's redundant!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Prof, I contend that it doesn't matter if Eve is fully informed, partially informed or totally innocent.

 

The outcome is still the same.

 

Therefore what's the point of a fool-proof plan?  It's redundant!

You raise some interesting questions, here.  Any answers I give would naturally be speculation, but I'm willing to give it a whirl.  

 

We know from the text what the outcome of a partially informed Eve was: eating the fruit without truly understanding the full extent of the damage that choice would have.

 

Were she totally innocent then I would say it would have been beyond her ability to make any choice, let alone the choice between good and evil.  She simply would not have had the experience and knowledge to choose anything.  If she were truly innocent, without the ability to comprehend evil, or good, for that matter, then she would have no basis for differentiation.  An omniscient god would have known this, though, and not left it to her to make the choice.  So, had she been completely innocent, I would hazard the guess that she would still to this day be sitting under the tree wondering what to do.

 

However, I think we can glean from the text the idea that she was not completely innocent, at least not in god's eyes, which is why he did leave her to choose.  Not only was she capable of feeling sinful desires, but god would not have been so harsh with her had he thought she was innocent.  If she was truly innocent and had been genuinely conned by the serpent, surely a god whose justice is supposedly tempered with mercy would have been more lenient, maybe even given her a second chance.  That's not what god did, though.  He punished her to the fullest extent of the law, so to speak.

 

Finally, in keeping with the train of thought I have thus far presented on this thread and others, I'd have to say that had she had the benefit of full disclosure, I would certainly hope she would have made a better choice; but even if she didn't, at least the fact of her being informed before hand would square up with what we view as fairness.  I once had a Sunday School teacher say that if Eve hadn't eaten the fruit, someone else would have, probably one of their kids.  At the time it made sense (I was just a kid); but now I find that to be a very pessimistic view of humanity.  In fact, as I look back on it, it really paints god in a negative light as well.  That answer makes it seem that the "fall" was inevitable... like god set it up from the beginning.

 

I'm not sure the outcome would have been the same, but since we're dealing with myth anyway, I'm not sure it matters.  Besides, a fool-proof plan may seem redundant, but the god of the bible has never been known for good planning, consistency, or even basic engineering and design skills.  

[Guest end3]

Prof, I contend that it doesn't matter if Eve is fully informed, partially informed or totally innocent.

 

The outcome is still the same.

 

Therefore what's the point of a fool-proof plan?  It's redundant!

Yay! we have a winner. Jesus, Grace was the plan all along.

[mymistake]

 

Prof, I contend that it doesn't matter if Eve is fully informed, partially informed or totally innocent.

 

The outcome is still the same.

 

Therefore what's the point of a fool-proof plan?  It's redundant!

Yay! we have a winner. Jesus, Grace was the plan all along.

 

 

 

You are not paying attention.  The author of the Garden of Eden myth never imagined Jesus and cared nothing for grace.  If he could see you today he would certainly think you worship false gods.

[bornagainathiest]

No End! 

 

That's not what I meant and you know it.  Now take that back. 

 

You're twisting my words.

This is doubly disappointing because the Prof said you weren't being an **** and I thought he was right.

 

Stop being an **** and take that back!

[Guest end3]

No End! 

 

That's not what I meant and you know it.  Now take that back. 

 

You're twisting my words.

This is doubly disappointing because the Prof said you weren't being an **** and I thought he was right.

 

Stop being an **** and take that back!

Just because I see a relationship within your words doesn't mean it's not there. It's science.

 

With that in mind, my statement was not written with malice towards you, you have my word on that BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

I don't care if your intent was malicious or not, End.

 

Nor do I care if you see some kind of relationship or not.

 

You stepped out of line by taking my words out of their proper context.

 

They related ONLY to my dialog with the Prof and referred ONLY to the degree of knowledge Eve had of God's warning to Adam.

 

You know this, so don't play innocent here!

 

My words DO NOT relate to Jesus and grace...

 

so take them back NOW!

[Neverlandrut]

Here we go again, End3's completely faulty claim that he is using science to make a religious connection. No End3, it is not science. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Can't be done. What's more, there was no concept of a messiah and grace at the time the creation story was written. The extrapolation of messianic ideas came much later in Jewish history, when they developed the messiah doctrine and looked back at the creation story and said, "Hey, the seed of the woman crushing the head of the serpent bit fits!" Just like what you do. Just because your biased, pattern seeking brain CAN find patterns, doesn't mean that they are objective/intended patterns. You can spill a salt shaker and find 50 patterns in the mess, but it doesn't mean anything. Just because you can make something fit, doesn't mean it belongs there. Now, stop with this non-sense claim that you are using science to make connections between biblical claims. What you are doing is the epitome of confirmation bias. You are looking for anything that looks like a connection while ignoring everything else that goes against it and claiming your "connection" is legitimate. It's not! It's confirmation bias which can only creat false conclusions because it deliberately ignores data that it doesn't like or agree with. The fact that some one as seemingly intelligent as you can't grasp this is beyond me.

 

Clarification: Science + religion = square peg + round whole. Scriptural claim A + scriptural claim B Doses not equal complex doctrine M. Your conclusions from your "fitting together of scriptures" does not follow.

[bornagainathiest]

And you'd better answer me first, BEFORE you reply to Neverlandrut!

[bornagainathiest]

I'm waiting!

[Neverlandrut]

And you'd better answer me first, BEFORE you reply to Neverlandrut!

Sorry to cut in line BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

No problem Neverlandrut!

[bornagainathiest]

I'm still waiting, End!

[Guest end3]

Worried about you BAA being triggered so hard by one small comment. It's not that important.

 

Neverland...science is observation. I observed. This is legal within science. <Z snap>

[bornagainathiest]

It's important to ME, End.

 

It's also important in this forum as a matter of principle.

 

You should respect my wishes and the integrity of what happens here over what you do or don't find important.

 

Don't forget!

Thumbelina was penalized for taking someone's words out of their proper context.  I'm going offline for a few hours now, but I'll be back later.  When I return I'd better find you've taken your words back.  If I don't see it, then I'll be lodging a formal complaint against you with the Mods.

 

Later.

[Guest end3]

I re-read. I'm not taking it back. It's a valid observation for a believer. I will find Scripture to support this view if you wish.

[Roz]

BAA, I'm not taking End3's side at all here, but isn't this christianity's MO?  Taking things out of context because their mind can't let go of the god delusion?

 

What I'm saying is maybe his mental condition can't help it.  Even if he knows he's taking it out of context and twisting what you've said in your dialog with RNP, he can't help but follow the christian line.

[Neverlandrut]

Worried about you BAA being triggered so hard by one small comment. It's not that important.

 

Neverland...science is observation. I observed. This is legal within science. <Z snap>

No. You are wrong yet again. Observation alone is not science! Science is the systematic testing of falsifiable hypotheses based on observation, in a repeatable and verifiable format. You have observation + unfounded conclusions without a falsifiable hypothesis presented in a form that is neither logically coherent or verifiable. Not science.

[Roz]

 

Worried about you BAA being triggered so hard by one small comment. It's not that important.

 

Neverland...science is observation. I observed. This is legal within science. <Z snap>

No. You are wrong yet again. Observation alone is not science! Science is the systematic testing of falsifiable hypotheses based on observation, in a repeatable and verifiable format.

 

 

They're masters of taking things out of context, what more proof do you want?