Faith, Logic, and Freedom

[Edgarcito]

45 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

In actuality humans still are not born with an inherent sense of right or wrong. This is developed over time and taught by the parents through tone of voice, how a parent looks at a child, punishment, teaching, and life experience seeing the effects of your actions on others. 

 

As a parent I saw this with my children and experienced it as a child. So this part of the story never resonated fully with me. But I did accept it. But If the knowledge of good and evil were embedded in our minds from this event in the garden. Why do we have to teach our children right from wrong? I mean none of my kids had any problem taking off bare ass naked through the house. Me right behind them chasing them down trying to get a diaper on em

 

It almost feels to me like Adam is just basically a robot at this point. Not knowing right from wrong. Doing what he's told. Tending to the garden, naming all the animals, etc. So if Adam and Eve truly knew nothing about good or evil. It stands to reason like Walt said. That they would have seen reason in the snakes argument. I mean it was logical. But at the same time they wouldn't have known it was wrong to transgress God's order. As they didnt know the concept of good or evil. And apparently nothing the snake said was actually a lie. God did fear them becoming like him. To the point he kicked them out so they couldn't become immortal as well. 

 

The people that wrote this weren't very smart people I don't think. This just feels like a off the cuff story you would tell a child to satisfy their curiosity about the world around them. Nothing in it reflects reality. Except to someone who believes its the word of God. 

 

DB

I'm not sure that's correct.  There's epigenetics and likely studies that suggest otherwise.

[Edgarcito]

43 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I think this needs further examination as well.  If they were basically robots just doing as they were told, would they have been able to see reason and logic?  

When Eve saw A and B and C, she chose and acted.  Looks very much like logic imo.

[Edgarcito]

46 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

It feels to me like it was a lesson to blindly follow what you are told. Whether or not you think its right or wrong. Just do it because I said so. 

 

Which we know is not a good mindset for anyone to have. Except the one giving the orders. 

 

DB

The inference to me is God would have been practicing morality and Eve was offered logic.  A key phrase to me was they were "free" to eat.  Whether they understood or not, if God were granting freedom to a species in order to find a remnant of "faithful", to me it might start out as creating and observing.  And the Bible says God didn't like what happened in humanity.....i.e., the evolution of faith, and started over. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This would seem to open the opportunity for a situation to arise wherein Adam might have to choose the lessor of two "evils", neither of which were good enough to be "good" nor not good enough to be "evil".  He would only be able to call the less-not-good choice "good."  But how would Adam know that without having even a rudimentary understanding of the difference between the two, or the degrees of each therein?

 

Very good questions, @mwc.  This is something I have never considered.  Thank you.

But when I suggest something, rude, heretical, half-ass Christian.  Thx.

[mwc]

56 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

The people that wrote this weren't very smart people I don't think. This just feels like a off the cuff story you would tell a child to satisfy their curiosity about the world around them. Nothing in it reflects reality. Except to someone who believes its the word of God. 

     I'm short on time at the moment but I thought I'd say something on this real quick.

 

     I used to think along these lines but I've since changed my opinion.  These folks were smart.  They just were writing for their own communities and their needs.  This particular bit of text is etiological so it's just to explain the how's and why's of how their world was the way it was and it does that job reasonably well given the time it was written.  There was a god, he made things, people messed that up (which makes sense in the much more brutal age they lived) and the results were what everyone had to deal with.  It was a good enough explanation.

 

     These authors had no idea that people were going to sit around a couple thousand years after and pick apart their every word looking for every bit of meaning to support whatever argument they were making.  What an impossible standard to even begin to sit down to write.  I'd fail spectacularly.  I imagine that they didn't even think most people would read what they wrote, given illiteracy, so it was only to be read by a few and relayed to the rest (and probably not verbatim).

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, mwc said:

     I guess we need to figure out what we think Adam might be able to understand as "good?"  If Adam were to fall off a cliff and break his leg would he find that to be good, evil, indifferent or something else?

 

          mwc

 

 

 

This is covered here, mwc.    https://iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/ 

 

Moral evil. This is evil that results from the misuse of free will on the part of some moral agent in such a way that the agent thereby becomes morally blameworthy for the resultant evil. Moral evil therefore includes specific acts of intentional wrongdoing such as lying and murdering, as well as defects in character such as dishonesty and greed.

 

Natural evil. In contrast to moral evil, natural evil is evil that results from the operation of natural processes, in which case no human being can be held morally accountable for the resultant evil. Classic examples of natural evil are natural disasters such as cyclones and earthquakes that result in enormous suffering and loss of life, illnesses such as leukemia and Alzheimer’s, and disabilities such as blindness and deafness.

 

What you seem to be describing is natural evil.

 

But the apostle Paul says that death came into the world through the actions of one man, Adam.  So, it looks as if scripture is telling us that both natural and moral evil didn't exist before the Fall.

 

Romans 8 : 20 & 21.

 

20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 

21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

Romans 5 : 12 - 14

 

12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 

14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

25 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The inference to me is God would have been practicing morality and Eve was offered logic.  A key phrase to me was they were "free" to eat.  Whether they understood or not, if God were granting freedom to a species in order to find a remnant of "faithful", to me it might start out as creating and observing.  And the Bible says God didn't like what happened in humanity.....i.e., the evolution of faith, and started over. 

 

False.

 

Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

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.”

 

The use of the word 'free' in this context means free from punishment, not free to choose.

 

Eating from the forbidden tree meant the punishment of death.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

34 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

When Eve saw A and B and C, she chose and acted.  Looks very much like logic imo.

 

But yesterday you wrote what the bible said 'didn't matter', Ed.

 

Why does it matter now?

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

False.

 

Genesis 2 : 15 - 17.

 

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 

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.”

 

The use of the word 'free' in this context means free from punishment, not free to choose.

 

Eating from the forbidden tree meant the punishment of death.

 

 

 

 

No, free to eat from this group, plural, but not that one select tree.  IF there were only two trees in the garden, maybe I could see your point.  The point I was trying to make was they were given freedom and the experience and God allowed and then acted accordingly based on their choices.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

45 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I'm not sure that's correct.  There's epigenetics and likely studies that suggest otherwise.

From my experience. If I never told my children anything. They would destroy the whole house, stick shit in outlets, pull boiling water down on them. Toddlers do not know right from wrong unless they are told otherwise. I saw it in action. Of course as a good father I didn't let any of that happen and they are still alive. 

 

Unlike asshole bible God. 

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

But yesterday you wrote what the bible said 'didn't matter', Ed.

 

Why does it matter now?

It's amazing to me that yesterday I was speculating on the Bible and because it speaks to my unique individuality as it does yours, and should, that mine in not allowed and yours is seemingly without flaw.  One of the studied members here suggests he considers something similar and it's allowed.  I see it as an ugly bias.  It's reasonable give the reason for the website.....and the particular sub-forum.  It just comes across as hypocrisy on many levels.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No, free to eat from this group, plural, but not that one select tree.  IF there were only two trees in the garden, maybe I could see your point.  The point I was trying to make was they were given freedom and the experience and God allowed and then acted accordingly based on their choices.

Why didn't God mention not eating from the tree of life? I mean really there were two trees he didn't want them to eat from. 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

No, free to eat from this group, plural, but not that one select tree.  IF there were only two trees in the garden, maybe I could see your point.  The point I was trying to make was they were given freedom and the experience and God allowed and then acted accordingly based on their choices.

 

No, that's wrong.

 

They could only choose on the basis of punishment or non-punishment.

 

Not on the basis of understanding the morality (good or evil) of their actions.

 

If they understood good and evil before they ate, that would contradict Genesis 3 : 6 & 7.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

They only gained the wisdom to understand the morality of good and evil after they ate.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

Just now, DarkBishop said:

From my experience. If I never told my children anything. They would destroy the whole house, stick shit in outlets, pull boiling water down on them. Toddlers do not know right from wrong unless they are told otherwise. I saw it in action. Of course as a good father I didn't let any of that happen and they are still alive. 

 

Unlike asshole bible God. 

Dude, I'm just citing the research.  It's difficult for me to ignore the potential effects of generations upon generations of immorality vs. morality.  Surely you have witnessed the children of generations of church attendees and their behavior vs. non?  Even I could tell a difference.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

It's amazing to me that yesterday I was speculating on the Bible and because it speaks to my unique individuality as it does yours, and should, that mine in not allowed and yours is seemingly without flaw.  One of the studied members here suggests he considers something similar and it's allowed.  I see it as an ugly bias.  It's reasonable give the reason for the website.....and the particular sub-forum.  It just comes across as hypocrisy on many levels.

 

That's because I stick to what the text says and you don't.

 

The hypocrisy comes when you play fast and loose with scripture on one day and then don't on the following day.

[Edgarcito]

Just now, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, that's wrong.

 

They could only choose on the basis of punishment or non-punishment.

 

Not on the basis of understanding the morality (good or evil) of their actions.

 

If they understood good and evil before they ate, that would contradict Genesis 3 : 6 & 7.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

They only gained the wisdom to understand the morality of good and evil after they ate.

 

 

That's not what it says.  it didn't say, if you eat this one I will kill you.  It says if you eat this one you will surely die.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

No, that's wrong.

 

They could only choose on the basis of punishment or non-punishment.

 

Not on the basis of understanding the morality (good or evil) of their actions.

 

If they understood good and evil before they ate, that would contradict Genesis 3 : 6 & 7.

 

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 

7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 

They only gained the wisdom to understand the morality of good and evil after they ate.

 

 

You're not following the discussion.  We are past the idea that this was a moral or immoral choice, rather a faithful vs. logical choice given freedom regardless of their understanding of morality.

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's because I stick to the text says and you don't.

 

The hypocrisy comes when you play fast and loose with scripture on one day and then don't on the following day.

MWC sticks very much more to the text and suggested something similar and everyone accepted his input?  That seems like bias.

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Why didn't God mention not eating from the tree of life? I mean really there were two trees he didn't want them to eat from. 

I was understanding that were essentially immortal anyhow while in the garden.  Just always an assumption, but I'm open for suggestions.

[walterpthefirst]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

That's not what it says.  it didn't say, if you eat this one I will kill you.  It says if you eat this one you will surely die.

 

And just who would have caused Adam's death?

 

By your logic, when the rattler comes into your garden and bites your child it's the child's fault.

 

Really?

[walterpthefirst]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

MWC sticks very much more to the text and suggested something similar and everyone accepted his input?  That seems like bias.

 

Exactly.

 

mwc is honest with the text and you, by your own admission yesterday, are not.

 

So, if I have a bias in play here it's for those who don't spin the text as you do.

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And just who would have caused Adam's death?

 

By your logic, when the rattler comes into your garden and bites your child it's the child's fault.

 

Really?

The point is, God didn't tell them them He would punish them, but the result of their actions.  Two totally different approaches.  Regardless of how they would die.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You're not following the discussion.  We are past the idea that this was a moral or immoral choice, rather a faithful vs. logical choice given freedom regardless of their understanding of morality.

 

Ok, then.

 

If you are happy to admit that Adam and Eve were incapable of moral choices before they ate the fruit?

[Edgarcito]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Exactly.

 

mwc is honest with the text and you, by your own admission yesterday, are not.

 

So, if I have a bias in play here it's for those who don't spin the text as you do.

Both were speculation?  He observed, I observed.  ?????  Don't people describe the Bible as "living"?

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

Both were speculation?  He observed, I observed.  ?????  Don't people describe the Bible as "living"?

 

No, mwc didn't speculate.

 

He observed what was in text.

 

Doing that is not speculation.