Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, mwc said:

You're overlooking the entire universe is only 6000 years old.  What's the Ice Age?

Damn.  Ya got me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why would an omniscient god need to "test" anything?  Shouldn't he have already known the answers?

Edgarcito,   You are trying and failing to defend the indefensible and to excuse the inexcusable.   Scripture is what it is and says what it says.   No amount of wishful

It’s not what Mark said, it’s Walter intentionally mining old conversations for ill intentions... Now, back to the broadcast previously in progress...

Posted Images

Hello again Edgarcito.  :)

 

I was wondering why you entitled this thread the LAW in the garden, when there was no written law of any kind in Eden?

 

This isn't a trivial point, btw.

 

It's a vitally important one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

 

This is the Wiki page about the legal principle that we are all familiar with - ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

This section is relevant to Adam's situation in Eden.

 

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated"). In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can bind only when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all.

 

Clearly there was no written law in Eden for Adam to read, even if he could read.

 

But there is a principle established in Genesis 1; that when god speaks, he speaks the thing in question into existence.

 

In Genesis 1 god speaks everything into existence over a period of six days and then rests on the seventh.

 

So, following on from that, when god speaks to Adam in Genesis 2 : 16 & 17, he is speaking a law into existence.

 

Genesis 2 : 16 & 17

 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

From this moment onwards that law was binding upon Adam and he was not in ignorance of it.

 

Is this the law you had in mind when you started this thread, Edgarcito?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, WalterP said:

Hello again Edgarcito.  :)

 

I was wondering why you entitled this thread the LAW in the garden, when there was no written law of any kind in Eden?

 

This isn't a trivial point, btw.

 

It's a vitally important one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

 

This is the Wiki page about the legal principle that we are all familiar with - ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

This section is relevant to Adam's situation in Eden.

 

The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly promulgated—published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the ancient phrase of Gratian, Leges instituuntur cum promulgantur ("Laws are instituted when they are promulgated"). In order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by their being given notice by promulgation. A law can bind only when it is reasonably possible for those to whom it applies to acquire knowledge of it in order to observe it, even if actual knowledge of the law is absent for a particular individual. A secret law is no law at all.

 

Clearly there was no written law in Eden for Adam to read, even if he could read.

 

But there is a principle established in Genesis 1; that when god speaks, he speaks the thing in question into existence.

 

In Genesis 1 god speaks everything into existence over a period of six days and then rests on the seventh.

 

So, following on from that, when god speaks to Adam in Genesis 2 : 16 & 17, he is speaking a law into existence.

 

Genesis 2 : 16 & 17

 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 

17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

 

From this moment onwards that law was binding upon Adam and he was not in ignorance of it.

 

Is this the law you had in mind when you started this thread, Edgarcito?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Romans 7 Walter.... I see it very similar to when God gives the Mosaic Law....but it's not as extensive and to Adam.  Do you see it differntly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2021 at 7:07 AM, mwc said:

     What is the purpose of this system?

 

     For humans it's pretty simple.  We need to establish a system so that each generation can eventually grow up and replace the ones that came before them.  If we don't then we risk dying out.  It wouldn't take too long for all our helpless babies to die off if no one cared for them which would put an end to humanity in fairly short order.  Even if we stopped caring when they became toddlers the results would be the same.  The point here is that we need to raise children up to become adults so that they can sustain themselves without their parents and have the ability to raise another generation up behind them to prepare them for the day that they are no longer alive.

 

     However, what is the purpose for this god?  The idea here is that once the end of this present system ends that we switch over to a new system.  All people are raised from the dead.  There's a judgment.  This judgment doesn't really matter here but it's mentioned as a point of reference.  Then the new system comes into play.  This system is one where everyone that is present doesn't need to be self-reliant, living without the parent or creator, but the opposite.  They are now reliant on the god.  Essentially a full-circle back to the Garden of Eden.  One where any commands, such as "touch this tree" or "do not touch this tree" are simply expected to be obeyed.

 

     This is a return to being a child not acting as an adult.  This system as you describe it appears to be an exorcise in futility.  Gaining liberty as an adult and then placed back under childish limitations seems more punishment than reward.

 

          mwc

 

To the first paragraph.  You make it sound very utilitarian.  I don't believe parents direct their children from an utilitarian aspect.  Maybe a few warped parents.

 

Not sure about your next take on things.  I'm gathering that their is a value to freedom.  I'm uncertain how you assign slavery to Heaven...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Romans 7 Walter.... I see it very similar to when God gives the Mosaic Law....but it's not as extensive and to Adam.  Do you see it differntly?

 

Sorry Edgarcito, but I just don't see how Romans 7 applies in any way to Eden, to Adam or to Eve.

 

Nor to anyone mentioned in the OT until Mosaic Law came into effect.

 

The Law Paul speaks about is the one given to Israel through Moses.

 

Just as the New Covenant of Christ's blood can't be backdated to apply to people like King David or Elijah, so the Law of Moses can't be backdated to apply to people like Noah or Abraham.

 

Each law is proper to its time and applies only those people it was designed to apply to.

 

We can see this easily if we look at the some of ten commandments.

 

For instance, how could Adam possibly honour his father and mother when he had no mother?

How could he possibly commit adultery when there were no other women in the world but Eve?

How could he possibly bear false witness against his neighbour when he had no neighbours?

How could he possibly covet his neighbour's house when houses and neighbours didn't exist?

How could he possibly covet his neighbour's wife when neighbours and their wives didn't exist?

How could he possibly covet his neighbour's slaves, his neighbour's animals or any of his neighbour's possessions when none of the above existed?

 

It just doesn't work, does it?

 

Moreover, none of the strict dietary regulations, regulations about hygiene and regulations about burial of the dead that are found in Mosaic law could possibly apply to Adam in his unfallen state.

 

Unworkable.

 

 

 

But let me ask you this Edgarcito.

 

What can you see in Genesis 1, 2 and 3 three that might amount to a law from god?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Each law is proper to its time and applies only those people it was designed to apply to.

 

 

Commandments = law.  The command was Adam not to eat from the tree.

 

How is this not law applicable to it's time and intended recipients...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

To the first paragraph.  You make it sound very utilitarian.  I don't believe parents direct their children from an utilitarian aspect.  Maybe a few warped parents.

 

Not sure about your next take on things.  I'm gathering that their is a value to freedom.  I'm uncertain how you assign slavery to Heaven...

     Is utilitarian what you're really going for here?  Because a simple definition says:

Quote

Utilitarianism is a theory of morality, which advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and opposes actions that cause unhappiness or harm. ... Utilitarianism would say that an action is right if it results in the happiness of the greatest number of people in a society or a group.

     I didn't say that.

 

 

     So rather than simply repeating everything I said just go ahead and answer the short question I asked.  To what end?  What is the purpose of what you proposed?

 

          mwc

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mwc said:

     Is utilitarian what you're really going for here?  Because a simple definition says:

     I didn't say that.

 

 

     So rather than simply repeating everything I said just go ahead and answer the short question I asked.  To what end?  What is the purpose of what you proposed?

 

          mwc

 

To what end.  I think we realistically should call the end, the end of our natural lives, unless you have special knowledge of our post natural lives outside of what's alluded to in the Bible.  You know the Bible story better than I, so there is no need in stating that, but the end would be Grace and Love, i.e. godliness after our progression, the "race", to arrive at that point, hopefully.  I believe my point was the beginning is not actually with the Mosaic law, but starts in the Garden, God giving commands for our holiness/cleanliness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator

Out of curiosity, and somewhat off track: has anyone ever considered why god has always felt the need to have all of these laws and rules?  Why does he feel the need to control every aspect of our lives from what kind of fabric we can wear to what tree we can eat fruit from?  And could he not have just created us with an innate dislike for shellfish instead of making them yummy and then banning them?  It can't possibly be about morality; that much is certain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Out of curiosity, and somewhat off track: has anyone ever considered why god has always felt the need to have all of these laws and rules?  Why does he feel the need to control every aspect of our lives from what kind of fabric we can wear to what tree we can eat fruit from?  And could he not have just created us with an innate dislike for shellfish instead of making them yummy and then banning them?  It can't possibly be about morality; that much is certain.

I ran into another paradox. God gives us supposed freedom and then asks us to offer unquestioning obedience. I mean what is the point of freedom if obedience is the end goal. It is like saying you offer people freedom to vote and then command them to vote a candidate under threat of violenve. What is the point if that election except for some perverse performance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Out of curiosity, and somewhat off track: has anyone ever considered why god has always felt the need to have all of these laws and rules?  Why does he feel the need to control every aspect of our lives from what kind of fabric we can wear to what tree we can eat fruit from?  And could he not have just created us with an innate dislike for shellfish instead of making them yummy and then banning them?  It can't possibly be about morality; that much is certain.

He knew men would be playing with themselves 24-7 and women would be plotting for power.  Too much of a good thing is not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Myrkhoos said:

I ran into another paradox. God gives us supposed freedom and then asks us to offer unquestioning obedience. I mean what is the point of freedom if obedience is the end goal. It is like saying you offer people freedom to vote and then command them to vote a candidate under threat of violenve. What is the point if that election except for some perverse performance?

Obedience is not the end goal.  Freedom in eternal life.....that you would CHOOSE obedience in faith that you might acquire eternal life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Obedience is not the end goal.  Freedom in eternal life.....that you would CHOOSE obedience in faith that you might acquire eternal life.

To further clarify, do you mean or agree with the position that the Law was designed to be impossible to comply with thus providing a reason and need for a savior? 'Cause that's what I always heard, and frankly, it stank of shit even when I was going to church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Obedience is not the end goal.  Freedom in eternal life.....that you would CHOOSE obedience in faith that you might acquire eternal life.

That is kind of a word salad. There is NO freedom when you are required to obey now and Forever. Unless you redefine the word "freedom" . Which you can, but do tell from the beggining.

       Otherwise, Freedom to choose obedience is like saying having sex in order to remain a virgin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, in many legal systems, telling someone they can either sign a contract or be killed is considered coercion, is illegal and nullifies any contract signed in those conditions. It is not considered a "free" choice. That is why you should define what freedom means to you in the context of genesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

He knew men would be playing with themselves 24-7 and women would be plotting for power.  Too much of a good thing is not good.

You can't be serious with this post.

 

a) if god made all the animals and they don't play with themselves 24-7 but live, multiply, and die then he certainly knew how to make us without doing so.

b) this has a whiff of inappropriate stereotyping if not meant in jest, even then, a bit off color given the current social climate.

c) too much of good thing is not good unless it's god amirite?  Also, as creator of all things, he chose to make it this way.  As the knower of all things, any event that occurs or fails to occur was a conscious decision by god and being the very definition of "good" then any alternatives would either be equally as good (indifferent) or less good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

He knew men would be playing with themselves 24-7 and women would be plotting for power.  Too much of a good thing is not good.

So, when he "created" man and woman, he operated within the parameters of biological procreation and survival instinct already put into place by the evolutionary process?  That doesn't make any sense.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

By the way, in many legal systems, telling someone they can either sign a contract or be killed is considered coercion, is illegal and nullifies any contract signed in those conditions. It is not considered a "free" choice. That is why you should define what freedom means to you in the context of genesis.

Btw, you are looking at it incorrectly...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, when he "created" man and woman, he operated within the parameters of biological procreation and survival instinct already put into place by the evolutionary process?  That doesn't make any sense.  

I was attempting to be humorous.  We should start a separate thread about what God is able to create and how we perceive it given our limitations/subjectivity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

That is kind of a word salad. There is NO freedom when you are required to obey now and Forever. Unless you redefine the word "freedom" . Which you can, but do tell from the beggining.

       Otherwise, Freedom to choose obedience is like saying having sex in order to remain a virgin.

So you would choose what to believe in?  Serious question please, what qualities would you give to a human, that you would say, yeah, my freedom is at stake, and I need to believe in which one of these qualities that I make the right decision.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Btw, you are looking at it incorrectly...

That is why I asked you, please define your terms. We might have different definitions of freedom so what is correct to you is not for me bk we might be using different standards. 

      Let me start. I think freedom as possibility to choose between two things is irrational. I think neither hard determinism nor pure randonmness nor any combination can produce that outcome as it is a self contradictory notion. No need to develop why here. 

     "Freedom" is useful and logical to me in a limited, narrow sense. A man who is not in a prison is free relative to the prison for ex.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Obedience is not the end goal.  Freedom in eternal life.....that you would CHOOSE obedience in faith that you might acquire eternal life.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

So you would choose what to believe in?  Serious question please, what qualities would you give to a human, that you would say, yeah, my freedom is at stake, and I need to believe in which one of these qualities that I make the right decision.  

I really do not understand this post at all.

  I would choose what to believe in? Qualities to give? In what way? Please clarify. Need to believe in qualities? Right decision for what? What is the choice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

By the way, in many legal systems, telling someone they can either sign a contract or be killed is considered coercion, is illegal and nullifies any contract signed in those conditions. It is not considered a "free" choice. That is why you should define what freedom means to you in the context of genesis.

 

Our loving God gives  us 'free will' to live in paradise forever....or burn in hell forever. 

 

An armed robber gives us 'free will' to give him the money or take a bullet. 

 

Both examples of 'free will', eh?

 

/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

That is why I asked you, please define your terms. We might have different definitions of freedom so what is correct to you is not for me bk we might be using different standards. 

      Let me start. I think freedom as possibility to choose between two things is irrational. I think neither hard determinism nor pure randonmness nor any combination can produce that outcome as it is a self contradictory notion. No need to develop why here. 

     "Freedom" is useful and logical to me in a limited, narrow sense. A man who is not in a prison is free relative to the prison for ex.

I think in terms of Christianity, I would be suggesting that freedom is freedom from "sin", those definitions we are unable to physically keep and mentally incapable.

 

Edit: let's just stay with this line of thought at the moment please

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.