The Law in the Garden

[midniterider]

Freedom from wearing polyester.... 

[Edgarcito]

Just now, midniterider said:

Freedom from wearing polyester.... 

Amen.

[Myrkhoos]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

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

Are you very tired or is your autocorrect wacky? You last posts seems quite illogical. What is " those definitions we are unable to physically keep" supposed to mean?

     Also, terms of Christianity means very little. What kind of Christianity? I am only familiar with the Chrustian Orthodox view, and even there only a fraction. And even they have different views on what sin actually is, God, Jesus, etc, the meaning of the commandments.

 

[Edgarcito]

Not sure I understand.

 

Mom says d

11 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

Are you very tired or is your autocorrect wacky? You last posts seems quite illogical. What is " those definitions we are unable to physically keep" supposed to mean?

     Also, terms of Christianity means very little. What kind of Christianity? I am only familiar with the Chrustian Orthodox view, and even there only a fraction. And even they have different views on what sin actually is, God, Jesus, etc, the meaning of the commandments.

 

Fine, let's back up to where Myrkhoos is in life.....do we think there is morality in this world?  Do we think that there is the chance that we will all agree.  I gather from your comments that you would rather argue these points than look at the reality of the situation......that is, people raising their children to be "good" people.  For the sole reason that it logically makes sense???  The functionality of humanity is only a logic based system according to Myrkhoos?

[Edgarcito]

So we can't agree on anything really because we don't know a standard(s) well enough to define our agreement, but fucking magically we know the story outside of our subjectivity.  FUCKING AMAZING. 

 

The reason I don't come play in the sandbox....

[Myrkhoos]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Not sure I understand.

 

Mom says d

Fine, let's back up to where Myrkhoos is in life.....do we think there is morality in this world?  Do we think that there is the chance that we will all agree.  I gather from your comments that you would rather argue these points than look at the reality of the situation......that is, people raising their children to be "good" people.  For the sole reason that it logically makes sense???  The functionality of humanity is only a logic based system according to Myrkhoos?

Ok, I am sorry, I do not see anyway to discuss with you. Your comments seem incoherent and inconsistent, full of vague and use non sequiturs and you seem to attack "logic" making any further discussion impossible bk without a shared logic system ( like language actually is) there is only chaotic word salads we can throw at one another.

       In order for people to agree they usually "argue these points" . Dialogue. Within an accepted logical framework. You don't seem to want to do that. Ok. Then I retreat. In a way I feel like playing chess with someone who wants to use scream sounds instead of chess pieces. I cannot understand anything and end just going in another part where people are willing to actually use chess pieces.

      Good bye. Have a terrific day.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I gather from your comments that you would rather argue these points than look at the reality of the situation......that is, people raising their children to be "good" people

 

The participants must define "good" and I think you'll very quickly find that cultures outside your own may have a very, very different view of what constitutes "good".

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

The participants must define "good" and I think you'll very quickly find that cultures outside your own may have a very, very different view of what constitutes "good".

There are not laws all over the world within cultures?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

Ok, I am sorry, I do not see anyway to discuss with you. Your comments seem incoherent and inconsistent, full of vague and use non sequiturs and you seem to attack "logic" making any further discussion impossible bk without a shared logic system ( like language actually is) there is only chaotic word salads we can throw at one another.

       In order for people to agree they usually "argue these points" . Dialogue. Within an accepted logical framework. You don't seem to want to do that. Ok. Then I retreat. In a way I feel like playing chess with someone who wants to use scream sounds instead of chess pieces. I cannot understand anything and end just going in another part where people are willing to actually use chess pieces.

      Good bye. Have a terrific day.

At the end of "your chess board exercise" M, you haven't yet concluded that a chess board win is not the complete win....carry on with your path.  

[◊ Krowb ◊]

When you have lived in enough places and service clients from multiple cultures you quickly realize that you grew up and reside inside a bubble, assuming everyone views the world in a manner similar to you.  Once you spend years in another culture or years servicing clients from other cultures you learn that "good" as opposed to "laws" may not have much overlap.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, florduh said:

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.

Kind of a mind fuck.... 

 

Don't eat the fruit of the tree bc you will need to become omniscient to keep the Law.  

 

Which gives way to what does a room of omniscient individuals do....lol. God shit?

 

You have four aces in your hand and two under the table....I am absolute and absolutely certain....

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, Krowb said:

When you have lived in enough places and service clients from multiple cultures you quickly realize that you grew up and reside inside a bubble, assuming everyone views the world in a manner similar to you.  Once you spend years in another culture or years servicing clients from other cultures you learn that "good" as opposed to "laws" may not have much overlap.

I will accept that....but let me ask this: Is not the process the same?  Do not parents start children in the same ways essentially regardless of the standard used?.....a progression of instruction on the way to the goal?  Just asking.

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

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...

 

 

Edgarcito,

 

If you look at what I wrote yesterday, you'll see that I'm saying exactly that.

 

That the only spoken command god gave to Adam was the one law that was binding upon him.

 

Please look carefully at this, from yesterday.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

You are again showing a myopic view of the world.  Not all parents are interested in instruction or are goal oriented from their children.  We see cultures regularly where children are to be sold or put to work as soon as they're able.  In some inhabited parts of the world women are still viewed as property (imagine that!) in practice, if not explicitly in law.

 

In one particular culture I remember it being on the news for a few days about children left at home while the parents went away to work jobs in the city.  The grandparent died leaving the kids to fend for themselves.  The oldest daughter, still a young child, got tired of looking after her younger siblings and they all drank something similar to antifreeze.  In this particular culture if you are born and labeled "country" you cannot lawfully move to the city and if you move anyway then you and your children are ineligible for schooling or public services.

 

So while the statement holds true for our Western culture, it is not a universal statement that you apply to say . . . Thailand, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China.

 

I hope this answers your question and broadens your perspective of the human race as a whole.  We are an outlier in recorded history.

[WalterP]

So, we are in fact in agreement, Edgarcito.

 

Genesis 2 : 16 and 17 are where god gives Adam the law he must live under.

 

Where we diverge is this.

 

You seem to be saying that Adam was evil to disobey it and eat the fruit of the forbidden tree.

 

Whereas...

 

I'm saying that scripture tells us that Adam could not have been evil, thought evilly or acted evilly BEFORE he ate the fruit.

 

That's because god gave him no knowledge or understanding of either good or evil.

 

That's also because the knowledge of good and evil existed in only two places in Eden before Adam and Eve ate.

 

The first place was within god himself.

 

The second place was within the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

The knowledge of either good or evil was not within either Adam or Eve until they ate.

 

Do you agree?

 

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

2 hours 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.

 

This cannot apply to Adam, Edgarcito.

 

He already had eternal life because there was no such thing as death in Eden, nor anywhere in creation.

 

With no death, life continues forever.

 

Also, Adam had no need of and no concept of faith in god.

 

He saw god face to face every day because god liked to walk through Eden in the cool of the evening.

 

Faith only applies where something that cannot be seen is promised.

 

God didn't promise anything to Adam in Eden except death, the penalty for eating from the forbidden tree.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

A lot of thoughts arise from this discussion for me.  Given our lack of omniscience and scientific certainty, do we need an omniscient partner to absolve our incompleteness/subjectivity?  Rather straightforward that we are lacking.

 

Very truthfully, it is frustrating for me not to know how my behaviors and words will affect/effect reality ultimately.  I don't think many want to traverse this world thinking they have done harm.  

 

So I don't know, forgiveness and grace seem reasonable along with actually acting/doing works in good faith.  Which makes the Bible a reasonable standard.

 

Will be back.. 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

15 minutes ago, WalterP said:

He already had eternal life because there was no such thing as death in Eden, nor anywhere in creation.

 

So . . . . about this . . . God created the parasitic animals after the fall?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid_wasp

 

What counts as death?  Do insects count as life?  Thinking about all the insects accidentally consumed by herbivores that live in the vegetation.

 

Given what we can trace, Genesis seems more reasonable as a myth than reality.  Some carnivores literally cannot survive without ingesting the tissue of other animals.  Their digestive tracts cannot break down plant matter.  So god:

a) created animals with carnivorous designs "knowing" the fall was coming and had them magically eat plant matter until Adam did the one thing god said not to do, 

b) had carnivorous animals eating other animals, but leaving their prey alive . . .,

c) only humans are included in the "no death" thing.

d) created carnivores after the fall just to ramp up the difficulty level and increase pain and suffering of his most prized creations

e) did none of these things and it's simply a creation myth similar in style to others of the same period.

[WalterP]

 2 hours 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...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A word to Edgarcito and Myrkhoos...

 

If we are talking about what Adam and Eve could choose between, then we can immediately discard good and evil.

 

Scripture tells us that god made them both without any understanding of either good or evil.

 

It also tells us that they could not choose between good or evil until after they gained knowledge of these things by eating the forbidden fruit.

 

So, if we are to focus only on what they could choose, then the only sensible answer is between obedience and disobedience.

 

Which means we must then ask the following question.

 

Did they understand the consequences of choosing disobedience?

 

Our only reliable guide here is scripture.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

6 minutes ago, Krowb said:

 

So . . . . about this . . . God created the parasitic animals after the fall?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid_wasp

 

What counts as death?  Do insects count as life?  Thinking about all the insects accidentally consumed by herbivores that live in the vegetation.

 

Given what we can trace, Genesis seems more reasonable as a myth than reality.  Some carnivores literally cannot survive without ingesting the tissue of other animals.  Their digestive tracts cannot break down plant matter.  So god:

a) created animals with carnivorous designs "knowing" the fall was coming and had them magically eat plant matter until Adam did the one thing god said not to do, 

b) had carnivorous animals eating other animals, but leaving their prey alive . . .,

c) only humans are included in the "no death" thing.

d) created carnivores after the fall just to ramp up the difficulty level and increase pain and suffering of his most prized creations

e) did none of these things and it's simply a creation myth similar in style to others of the same period.

 

I am playing devil's advocate, Krowb.

 

I do not need to consider anything outside of what scripture says.

 

In my opinion it would make for a much more focused debate if we all confined ourselves only to what scripture says.

 

That way we could work through the internal logic of the narrative to see if it holds up to close examination or if it fails.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

I will accept that....but let me ask this: Is not the process the same?  Do not parents start children in the same ways essentially regardless of the standard used?.....a progression of instruction on the way to the goal?  Just asking.

 

Here's something for you to consider about your idea of gradual progression towards a goal, Edgarcito.

 

 

There was no possibility of Adam and Eve learning and gradually progressing towards any goal set by god.

 

There are three reasons for this.

 

First, they were made without the ability to understand either good or evil.

 

God could have schooled them patiently for a million years about good and evil and they would have learned nothing.

 

Second, god gave them no second chances, didn't ask them to resit the test, didn't help them learn from their mistake and didn't forgive them.

 

He gave them only one chance and they blew it.

 

In such a 'loser loses everything' scenario there's no possibility of gradual progression.

 

Lastly, god set them no goal that they hadn't already achieved.

 

Their purpose was to keep god's garden.

 

They were doing that up until the serpent intervened.

 

So, there really is no argument for Eden being some kind of training ground where god wanted Adam and Eve to gradually progress towards to some goal.

 

Scripture simply won't support it.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

47 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

A lot of thoughts arise from this discussion for me.  Given our lack of omniscience and scientific certainty, do we need an omniscient partner to absolve our incompleteness/subjectivity?  Rather straightforward that we are lacking.

 

Very truthfully, it is frustrating for me not to know how my behaviors and words will affect/effect reality ultimately.  I don't think many want to traverse this world thinking they have done harm.  

 

So I don't know, forgiveness and grace seem reasonable along with actually acting/doing works in good faith.  Which makes the Bible a reasonable standard.

 

Will be back.. 

 

I will be back too Edgarcito.   

 

But its just gone midnight here and so I'll be back... tomorrow.

 

G'night!

 

 

Walter.

[sdelsolray]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Btw, you are looking at it incorrectly...

 

What is "it"?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

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

But why do we need to be free from sin?  This goes back to my original question of why god feels the need to control us with laws and rules.

[midniterider]

Sin: That's when you think about having sex with some random girl that walks by ... but you dont ... but you have committed adultery in your heart ... because God made guys horny ... then told us not to be horny. But didnt take away horniness. 

 

Btw, you dont commit adultery with your heart...it's another body part. Just sayin.