Adam & Eve, revisited.

[AtheistArchon]

- Browsing through the threads, I notice a common theme has emerged, that being the reliance upon the fall of man to settle other issues (such as our sinful nature inherited, and so on). I read the previous Adam & Evil thread, and it's interesting, but there's a different question I wanted to ask that doesn't appear to be addressed (or on topic) in that thread.

- Put very simply: why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

- I assume there must have been a good reason for doing so, but it escapes me. For example, one might say it was because god wanted (and planned) for A&E to obtain such knowledge. That's very well and good, but if we assume this, then why go through the trouble of cursing mankind in the process (and eventually necessitating the crucifixion of Jesus)? Why not create mankind with such knowledge in the first place? Free will should not be an issue, since it certainly wasn't an issue before Eve ate the fruit. If she didn't have free will before then, then how could she possibly be responsible for her actions?

- Another possible answer may be because god wanted to test mankind. But this puzzles me... isn't god supposed to be omniscient? What was god testing for if he knew how it would turn out? God shouldn't have to "test"... god is supposed to already know.

- Was it a decoration? It seems to me that Eden was supposed to be a paradise. No bad weather, no man-eating tigers, no dangers. Perhaps this isn't true? The tree certainly presented a danger... why place such a thing in Eden, especially if you did not want your creations eating from it?

[edited for silly spelling mistakes. :) ]

[Jaltus]

If there is no way for man to fall, then the "freedom to do good" is not a freedom at all.

[AtheistArchon]

If there is no way for man to fall, then the "freedom to do good" is not a freedom at all.

- I'm not sure I understand. If god had created A&E with the knowledge of the tree in the first place, would they not have any freedom? They would still have the capacity to to immoral things without the tree.

- So why the tree? Why the curse?

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 05:39 AM
Jaltus:

If there is no way for man to fall, then the "freedom to do good" is not a freedom at all.

Did Adam and Eve have freedom before the fall?

Let us not forget that it is Christian dogma that God has created beings (eg Gabriel, Michael) with free will, knowing in advance that they would never commit evil (as they never have)

God can know in advance that beings with free will will never commit evil in the future. Even Christian philosophers can know that, and they are not omniscient.

Peter Williams in
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/angels3.htm quote Mortimer Adler as follows :-
'Once established in grace and admitted to the Beautific Vision, the Angelic will, no less than the human will, can no longer choose between good and evil. . . In the eternal possession of the Supreme Good they can still choose what they please, but their choice is always. . . a choice between good...'

So Christian philosophers think you can have free will and always choose good, and they know which beings will do that.

It can hardly be beyond God's powers to know that as well.

[spl_cadet]

It was a test designed to see if they would be obedien to God. Obviously they flunked.

[Piebald]

Put very simply: why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

It was put there so that Adam and Eve could experience the pleasure of Obedience to God.

[ACFaith.Com]

From my original sin (http://www.acfaith.com/originalsin.html) article:

When taken historically, the Garden story is intrinsically unlikely for several reasons:

1. the punishment or rather, the effects of the fall do not fit the crime. Why would God set up a system where two people eating a piece of fruit against his will would cause so much damage to subsequent civilization (billions and billions of people)? The situation in Genesis seems like it was rigged-like it was a recipe intended to create disaster.

2. The account is somewhat contradictory. Genesis 3: 7 says that "then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked" and v. 22 records God as saying "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil". How does one give a moral command to someone who does not "know good and evil"? This also further intensifies the ethical problem up above. If Adam and Eve did not know "good and evil" how much more do the effects or punishment of the fall not fit the crime?

3. Why would God curse snakes when (presumably) Satan was posessing one? This makes little sense (see the ned of Gen 3 for this). There was no need to curse snakes. Story = myth.

4. Where is the Garden of Eden at anyways? Genesis 3:24 says "After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Surely this "cherubium and a flaming sword" is a marvel to behold? It surely would attract hundreds of millions of tourists? Did the Garden of Eden disappear? Was it destroyed in the (global or local depending on who you ask) flood? I take it, paradoxically, the tree of life died somehow and this allowed the cherubium to go on its way? Even if this is so, it would seem silly for God to guard it with a cherubium and a flaming sword rather than just destorying it himself. Or why not have the cherubium destory it rather than sit there and wait until the flood to destory? Not that the Genesis flood ever happened of course.....

5. There is a complete lack of positive historical evidence regarding the details of the Genesis myth.

6. Things like Adam naming all the animals are clearly fictional. Some apologists try to reinterpret these passages (e.g. Hugh Ross Genesis Question) but their eisegesis and back-reading into scripture does not stand on its own merit.

7. Modern science is in direct conflict with the Genesis Myth. Why Should a myth be granted precedence over modern science?

8. There are numerous other creation myths from around the world that all have such mythical stories as the Genesis tales:

1. "The myth of human origins told by the Carabaulo people of Timor, in eastern Indonesia, serves to explain the social order. According to this account, there were originally no humans, just the sea. Two pieces of land emerged from the waters to become the entire island of Timor. Then a huge vagina appeared in the ground, out of which came the ancestors of the present population: the first to emerge became the landowning aristocrats, and those who followed were their commoners and tenants. To climb out of the vagina, the first people hauled themselves up by the creepers of a tree. It is said that the place of emergence is still to be seen today, but no one is allowed to penetrate the tunnel which descends from it." World Mythology, p. 303

2. In some West Africam myths, human beings were first created in heaven and sent down on a spider's web to the earth. [Information from WM p. 267]

3. In some Chinese myths goddess Nu Gua, who had a human head intertwined with a serpent tail for a body was on earth for some time. A sense of loneliness and the feeling that something was missing from the world kicked in and Nu Gua decided to fashion a human out of mud. When she put the creature down it sprang to life immediately. When she saw that her work was good she took more mud and made a host of people who wandered off into the countryside. She never felt lonely again as she could always hear their voices. (Info from WM p. 91)

4. Khnum was one of the four main Egyptian creator deities. He was described as the "father of fathers and the mother of mothers" in his temple at Esna. He shaped animals, humans and gods from clay on his potter's wheel and gave their bodies the breath of life. (info WM p. 39)

5. In Greece the myths of Prometheus and Pandora helped to explain the hardships which beset humanity. This is where the term 'pandora's box' comes from. When it was opened evil and sickness was released into the world. Only hope remained inside. Further, Greek mythology offers a variety of accounts regarding the origins of humanity. The idea of birth from the earth is often encountered. The first man Pelasgus, in one myth, sprang from the soil of Arcadia in the Peloponnese and founded the race of Pelasgians. "Another myth tells how Zeus sent a great flood to destroy humanity as a punishment for the misdeeds of the Titan Prometheus.. Deucalion, son of Prometheus, and his wife Pyrrha, daughter of Epimetheus and Pandora, were warned by the Titan and built an ark in which they survived the deluge. When the waters subsided, Deucalion and Pyrrha went to Delphi to pray to the Titan Themis, who in some accounts is said to be the mother of Prometheus. She told them to throw over their shoulders the bones of the being from whom they were both descended.

Bewildered at first, the couple soon realized that Themis must be referring to Gaia, the earth, whose bones were the stones in the ground. As each stone they hurled behind them landed, it turned into a human being: those thrown by Deucalion became men and those thrown by Pyrrha turned into women. The human race was thus re-created from the soil" (ibid, p. 130)

In a variation of the above account, Deucalion and his wife made a sacrifice to Zeus after the flood and his wrath was placated. Zeus then granted Deucalion one wish and his wish was for humanity to be re-created.

Hesiod in Works and Days wrote that the gods made the first men the Golden Race. They did not suffer old age, sickness or toil but for some reason they all died. It was not clear why. (WM)

6. In Indian thought, Prajapati (lord of progeny) produces children through his power of asceticism, among them a daughter, the Dawn. Prajapati becomes sexually aroused by his daughter and tries to commit incest with her. In shame and terror she turns into a deer, whereupon Prajapati become a stag and spills his seed, which gives rise to the first men. In another version, Prajapati mates with his daughter in one form after another and creates and procreated "all the pairs, even down to the ants." (WM p. 70)

7. Mayan myths tell of a succession of creations. The first people were made of earth but they were destroyed because they were mindless. The second race of people were made out of wood but they were destroyed because they were ungrateful towards their creators and they lacked souls. Legend has it that this wood race died in a flood or were eaten by demons. The last race created was naturally the Maya's ancestors who were made out of white and yellow maize blended together. "Because these maize people had divine understanding, the gods decided to "chip their eyes": this ensured that the people would be fired by the urge to reproduce themselves." (WM p. 249)

8. In the Babylonian creation myth Maduk killed Kingu and mixed his blood with earth to make humans. (WM p. 62)

I could go on but this should suffice. Creation myths and stories of the origins of humanity are very common around the world. There are also explanations that try to understand the hardship humans must endure. The question that naturally arises is: why should we accept the historicity of the Genesis myth and reject all the other accounts? The Genesis myth might be more ordered and structured than some other accounts and even less primitive but this should not be mistaken with historicity. Some apologist might assert that we should be agnostic about the Genesis creation story on strictly historical grounds as we cannot prove single attested events in antiquity did not happen. This us true but people who make comments like this are more to be admired for their devotion to apologetics than for their historical expertise. In the case of the Genesis story it is a fallacy known as 'special pleading' and I would respond to it accordingly: "I will remain agnostic regarding the historicity of the Genesis myth if you remain agnostic regarding the historicity of the Carabaulo myth which tells us that human kind originated on earth when a huge vagina appeared in the ground and the ancient peoples climbed out of it."

Vinnie

[ACFaith.Com]

03-14-2003 @ 02:09 PM
spl_cadet:

It was a test designed to see if they would be obedien to God. Obviously they flunked.

Test? That was temptation. Not a test. And James said God does not tempt us with sin doesn't it?

Vinnie

[Jaltus]

Did Adam and Eve have freedom before the fall?Yes, and my point is that they had total freedom in that they could choose to obey or not obey. If there was no tree, Adam and Eve would forever be innocent, but also forever be oppressed.


Let us not forget that it is Christian dogma that God has created beings (eg Gabriel, Michael) with free will, knowing in advance that they would never commit evil (as they never have)

God can know in advance that beings with free will will never commit evil in the future. Even Christian philosophers can know that, and they are not omniscient. Irrelevent. The point was not what they chose, but that they could choose. Angels were created with the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were not.


So Christian philosophers think you can have free will and always choose good, and they know which beings will do that.

It can hardly be beyond God's powers to know that as well. So what? The complication is again not what they did, but that they had the choice. You are focusing on the wrong part of the issue.

AA,

God created Adam and Eve (A&E makes me think of the channel or else ANE, Ancient Near East, lol) with perfect innocence so that if they made the right decision, they could keep that perfect innocence. As I said above, angels were created with the knwoledge of good and evil, man without it.

[johnransom]

03-13-2003 @ 11:37 PM
AtheistArchon:

- Put very simply: why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?
As noted by others, as a test of obedience.

- I assume there must have been a good reason for doing so, but it escapes me. For example, one might say it was because god wanted (and planned) for A&E to obtain such knowledge. That's very well and good, but if we assume this, then why go through the trouble of cursing mankind in the process (and eventually necessitating the crucifixion of Jesus)? Why not create mankind with such knowledge in the first place? Free will should not be an issue, since it certainly wasn't an issue before Eve ate the fruit. If she didn't have free will before then, then how could she possibly be responsible for her actions?
The knowledge gained was experiential, not abstract. I thought you should have gleaned that from the previous thread. By definition, you cannot be created with experiential knowledge. And how do you conclude that Eve did not possess free will before the Fall? How could she not, since she yielded to temptation?

- Another possible answer may be because god wanted to test mankind. But this puzzles me... isn't god supposed to be omniscient? What was god testing for if he knew how it would turn out? God shouldn't have to "test"... god is supposed to already know.
Why presume that the test was for God's benefit? It was for man's.

- Was it a decoration? It seems to me that Eden was supposed to be a paradise. No bad weather, no man-eating tigers, no dangers. Perhaps this isn't true? The tree certainly presented a danger...why place such a thing in Eden, especially if you did not want your creations eating from it?
In and of itself the tree was no danger whatsoever; it had no special qualities of any kind and was just like any other tree in the Garden. Again, you should have discovered this in the previous thread. The only danger was in the experience of disobedience.

[AtheistArchon]

- There are some pretty good answers thus far. Let me try and understand here...


It was a test designed to see if they would be obedien to God. Obviously they flunked.

- But god is omniscient. When he put the tree there, he already knew they'd flunk. So why put the tree there? There was nothing to test for, unless god did not already know the outcome.


Yes, and my point is that they had total freedom in that they could choose to obey or not obey. If there was no tree, Adam and Eve would forever be innocent, but also forever be oppressed.

- Let me see if I get this right (correct me please if I'm misunderstanding you). If there was no tree, A&E would still have freedom, BUT they would be oppressed. Why?

- I liken this kind of thing to... say... flying. I'd very much like to be able to fly unassisted. You know, flap my arms and fly. It is my will that I should be able to fly. However, I can't do it. Does this make me somehow NOT free?


Irrelevent. The point was not what they chose, but that they could choose. Angels were created with the knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were not.

- Why not? Gong back to my original question, why did it take the tree (and the eventual cursing of mankind and the death of Jesus, etc) to give them this understanding?


So what? The complication is again not what they did, but that they had the choice. You are focusing on the wrong part of the issue.

- If they didn't know good from evil, then I don't think they had much of a choice, did they? After all, how would they have known that it was "evil" to disobey god? They only gained this knowledge AFTER eating the fruit.


God created Adam and Eve (A&E makes me think of the channel or else ANE, Ancient Near East, lol) with perfect innocence so that if they made the right decision, they could keep that perfect innocence. As I said above, angels were created with the knwoledge of good and evil, man without it.

- Yes, I understand, but I'm still confused. Why put the tree in Eden?

- And point taken about "A&E"... I'll stop abbreviating it. :wink:

[AtheistArchon]

As noted by others, as a test of obedience.

- Why? Didn't god know what would happen? There's no need for such a test.

- If god put the tree there, then the outcome was certain. If he didn't, another outcome was certain. There should be no testing... god should not need to experiment.


The knowledge gained was experiential, not abstract. I thought you should have gleaned that from the previous thread. By definition, you cannot be created with experiential knowledge.

- God cannot do what again?

- I didn't know that this was an impossibility for god. Besides, experiential knowledge would come either way if god had created Adam and Eve with the knowledge of the tree; it just would not have been necessary to curse them for gaining it.


And how do you conclude that Eve did not possess free will before the Fall? How could she not, since she yielded to temptation?

- I never said she didn't. I said she did. Therefore, the tree was not the granter of free will, and it's still unnecessary.


Why presume that the test was for God's benefit? It was for man's.

- We benefitted from being cursed? How, when it wasn't necessary? We know that god is capable of creating beings with knowledge of good and evil without resorting to fruit.


In and of itself the tree was no danger whatsoever; it had no special qualities of any kind and was just like any other tree in the Garden.

- So... the tree of knowledge wasn't a tree of knowledge. :hrm:

- Was the tree of life not a tree of life either?

- And let me ask you this. If there had been a loaded gun in Eden, would that have not been a danger as well?


The only danger was in the experience of disobedience.

- That's like saying "the only danger was in the pulling of the trigger". My question, which you have not addressed, is why is such a thing necessary in the first place?

- Again, why did god put the tree in Eden, when he could have created Adam and Eve with such knowledge in the first place, and avoided lots of suffering and bloodshed?

[AtheistArchon]

- Clarifying a small point that I may have confused in the last post:

- When we talk about experiental knowledge, I'm not certain how being the recipient of a curse from god is necessary before you can be free. Is the knowledge of good and evil not enough?

- For example, I have never experienced the act of lighting my hair on fire. Or hammering a nail through my hand. Am I somehow incomplete because I do not have experiential knowledge of these things?

[Jaltus]

Let me see if I get this right (correct me please if I'm misunderstanding you). If there was no tree, A&E would still have freedom, BUT they would be oppressed. Why? Not quite the nuance I was looking for.

Adam and Eve (feel free to use A&E, I just can't bring myself to do so, hehe, it makes me keep laughing at myself) would have freedom of action if therre was not tree, but no moral responsibility. The tree was there in order to give Adam and Eve moral responsibility for their actions. Let me ask you this, if there was no tree but everything else was the same in the garden, how could Adam and Eve be held morally responsible for ANYTHING they did? Reward and punishment would be useless since they would only be able to do what is right. Introducing the possiblity of evil is what makes good good. If there is no evil, then good really does not mean that much, it is in fact the status quo.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 06:31 PM
AtheistArchon:

- When we talk about experiental knowledge, I'm not certain how being the recipient of a curse from god is necessary before you can be free. Is the knowledge of good and evil not enough?

- For example, I have never experienced the act of lighting my hair on fire. Or hammering a nail through my hand. Am I somehow incomplete because I do not have experiential knowledge of these things?

And God has no experiential knowledge of torturing babies for fun.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 07:19 PM
Jaltus:

Adam and Eve (feel free to use A&E, I just can't bring myself to do so, hehe, it makes me keep laughing at myself) would have freedom of action if therre was not tree, but no moral responsibility. The tree was there in order to give Adam and Eve moral responsibility for their actions. Let me ask you this, if there was no tree but everything else was the same in the garden, how could Adam and Eve be held morally responsible for ANYTHING they did? Reward and punishment would be useless since they would only be able to do what is right. Introducing the possiblity of evil is what makes good good. If there is no evil, then good really does not mean that much, it is in fact the status quo.

Why do you want to intoduce rewards and punishments for people who always do right?

Gabriel and Michael have always done right. How should they be punished?

I really am not sure what you mean by saying that people who do right should be held morally responsible for their actions.

Good was the status quo for Jesus, as well. He could do no other. Clearly, we should not take his goodness too seriously.

[AtheistArchon]

Adam and Eve (feel free to use A&E, I just can't bring myself to do so, hehe, it makes me keep laughing at myself) would have freedom of action if therre was not tree, but no moral responsibility. The tree was there in order to give Adam and Eve moral responsibility for their actions. Let me ask you this, if there was no tree but everything else was the same in the garden, how could Adam and Eve be held morally responsible for ANYTHING they did?

- Hmm. I'm still not sure I follow you. Are you saying that before Eve ate the fruit, she wasn't morally responsible? Or just that the presence of the tree itself gave them moral responsibility? If the former, then how could they be blamed? If the latter, then why?

- Surely, if they had been created with moral knowledge (instead of gaining it via the fruit), they would then have moral responsibility. They would know good from evil. They would be responsible for their actions... and I'm sure that there were other immoral things that could have been done than just eating from the tree.


Reward and punishment would be useless since they would only be able to do what is right.

- Hmm. Why would they be locked into being "good" if there were no tree? For example, Adam could technically murder Eve (or vice versa!). An immoral act, to be sure. He might not do it, but does that mean he does not have the freedom to choose such an evil act? Again, no tree needed.

[edited again for typos. Dang keyboard!]

[Jaltus]

Why do you want to intoduce rewards and punishments for people who always do right?You are missing the point. What I was saying that doing good when there is no evil is not meritorious, it is blah.


Gabriel and Michael have always done right. How should they be punished???? Try thinking a bit more before posting, this question is obviously ill conceived.


I really am not sure what you mean by saying that people who do right should be held morally responsible for their actions.You again missed the point. People who CAN ONLY do right cannot be rewarded (which is the result of being held responsible) because they could not have done otherwise. You reward someone for doing good when they could have done evil, you do not reward someone for doing something when they had no choice.


Good was the status quo for Jesus, as well. He could do no other. Clearly, we should not take his goodness too seriously. Good grief! The entire reason that Jesus was so outstanding was that He was tempted to do evil, but never did. Hence why it was meritorious! Another poorly conceived question.

Come on, Steve, you generally are much more careful than this. I am hoping this post is an aberration, for you generally have much stronger posts than this.

[Jaltus]

- Hmm. I'm still not sure I follow you. Are you saying that before Eve ate the fruit, she wasn't morally responsible? Or just that the presence of the tree itself gave them moral responsibility? If the former, then how could they be blamed? If the latter, then why?The opportunity to commit evil is what makes good meritorious. If I force someone to do the right thing, then their doing the right thing is not worthy of reward. However, if they do the right thing despite pressure to do the wrong thing, then the decision is meritorious.


- Surely, if they had been created with moral knowledge (instead of gaining it via the fruit), they would then have moral responsibility. They would know good from evil. They would be responsible for their actions... and I'm sure that there were other immoral things that could have been done than just eating from the tree.Yeah, but they were NOT created with moral knowledge, so this supposition is beside the point.


- Hmm. Why would they be locked into being "good" if there were no tree? For example, Adam could technically murder Eve (or vice versa!). An immoral act, to be sure. He might not do it, but does that mean he does not have the freedom to choose such an evil act? Again, no tree needed.
They would be locked into good for there would be no way for them to do something evil. They were totally innocent, hainvg no understanding of right and wrong. If a 1 year old pulls the trigger of a gun and kills someone, was it murder or just ignorance? Obviously, the latter. It would be the same thing for Adam and Eve, assuming they had yet to eat of the tree.

If there is no understanding of what right and wrong are, how do you hold such a person responsible?

[ACFaith.Com]

What I was saying that doing good when there is no evil is not meritorious, it is blah.

Is God's goodness where there was no evil, then "blah" if God could not be tempoted by evil? Until God created humans with the capability of doing evil his "good" was "blah"? Or is this issue escaped by positing God as the source or standard of "good"?

Vinnie

[AtheistArchon]

The opportunity to commit evil is what makes good meritorious. If I force someone to do the right thing, then their doing the right thing is not worthy of reward. However, if they do the right thing despite pressure to do the wrong thing, then the decision is meritorious.

- Granted. But why would the lack of a tree in the garden make this the case?


Yeah, but they were NOT created with moral knowledge, so this supposition is beside the point.

- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Adam and Eve did not have moral knowledge when they were created.

- So how can the possibly be responsible for making an immoral decision? The ability to know right from wrong (morals) was not in their grasp until after they ate the fruit.

- True, they disobeyed god. But they couldn't have known that disobeying god was a bad thing... they didn't know what "bad" was. God did not create them with that ability!


They would be locked into good for there would be no way for them to do something evil. They were totally innocent, hainvg no understanding of right and wrong. If a 1 year old pulls the trigger of a gun and kills someone, was it murder or just ignorance?

- Indeed. And if Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, was it wilful disobedience or just ignorance of morality?


Obviously, the latter. It would be the same thing for Adam and Eve, assuming they had yet to eat of the tree.

- Excellent! We agree. Eating the fruit, therefore, cannot be considered an immoral act. Eve didn't know right from wrong until afterwards.

- So why did we get cursed?

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 12:26 PM
AtheistArchon:



- Why? Didn't god know what would happen? There's no need for such a test.
You're being either obtuse or a poor reader (highly likely given the generally poor reading skills demonstrated by atheists around here). This has been answered thoroughly. And it's not like it's difficult. Whose benefit is a test EVER for? The tester's or the testee's? God is not playing with rats in a maze. And don't think you're clever by not capitalizing God; all it shows is your ignorance of grammatical rules relating to proper names.


- If god put the tree there, then the outcome was certain. If he didn't, another outcome was certain. There should be no testing... god should not need to experiment.
Nonsense. Why is it certain that Adam and Eve would disobey if the tree was present?


God cannot do what again?

- I didn't know that this was an impossibility for god. Besides, experiential knowledge would come either way if god had created Adam and Eve with the knowledge of the tree; it just would not have been necessary to curse them for gaining it.
Obtuse again. Created experiential knowledge is a contradiction in terms and therefore a logical impossibility and God does not do logical impossibilities. And don't lay the obvious omnipotence objection on me - it's a garbage argument. And explain how experiential knowledge can be gained without the opportunity to undergo the experience. Your argument is drivel. And why should God not punish Adam and Eve for their disobedience?


- I never said she didn't. I said she did. Therefore, the tree was not the granter of free will, and it's still unnecessary.
You most certainly did: "Free will should not be an issue, since it certainly wasn't an issue before Eve ate the fruit. If she didn't have free will before then, then how could she possibly be responsible for her actions?" If Eve DID have free will before the fall, then it is necessarily an issue. But you say it was not an issue, therefore she didn't have it and is therefore not responsible. I don't see what these statements could possibly mean otherwise. Of course, given your poor reading skills, why should we expect your writing skills to be any better? And whoever said the tree was the granter of free will? What nonsense is that?


- We benefitted from being cursed? How, when it wasn't necessary? We know that god is capable of creating beings with knowledge of good and evil without resorting to fruit.
Of course not - we flunked the test, remember? And again, the tree had no special qualities.


- So... the tree of knowledge wasn't a tree of knowledge. :hrm:

- Was the tree of life not a tree of life either?
Obviously, you weren't able to comprehend the other thread either. No point in trying to explain it to you here, then.


- And let me ask you this. If there had been a loaded gun in Eden, would that have not been a danger as well?
Of course not. God would have taken the firing pin out. What possible point does this inane question have?


- That's like saying "the only danger was in the pulling of the trigger". My question, which you have not addressed, is why is such a thing necessary in the first place?

Pathetic attempt at an analogy. Since the tree had no special qualities, it cannot be compared to a loaded gun, which, BTW, is completely harmless if you don't pull the trigger. And yes, your question has been addressed. Plenty of times. Because you don't get it doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.


- Again, why did god put the tree in Eden, when he could have created Adam and Eve with such knowledge in the first place, and avoided lots of suffering and bloodshed?
Obtuser and obtuser. One last time - experiential knowledge cannot be gained without undergoing the appropriate experience.

[Jaltus]

Is God's goodness where there was no evil, then "blah" if God could not be tempoted by evil? Until God created humans with the capability of doing evil his "good" was "blah"? Or is this issue escaped by positing God as the source or standard of "good"?This could be another thread, and to be honest is not something I want to deal with right now, though I would tend to say that God is the source of goodness in the first place, though that is only a partially satisfactory answer.



- Granted. But why would the lack of a tree in the garden make this the case?Because it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was the only thing that Adam and Eve KNEW they were not to touch. The object itself is irrelevent, the point is it was the one thing they were to not do.


- Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Adam and Eve did not have moral knowledge when they were created.
- So how can the possibly be responsible for making an immoral decision? The ability to know right from wrong (morals) was not in their grasp until after they ate the fruit.Hmmm, I see your point, but then it makes one wonder why God would tell them to not do something. Not knowing the difference between good and evil is hardly an answer for disobedience of a direct command. My honest "guess" would be that the tree confirmed the knowledge of good and evil rather than just being the source of it (after all, Satan knew good and evil without eating from the tree). However, I would want to work on this some more.


- Indeed. And if Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge, was it wilful disobedience or just ignorance of morality?Paul says in II Timothy that for Eve it was because she was deceived, but Adam (by contrast) did it understanding he was disobeying God.

[AtheistArchon]

You're being either obtuse or a poor reader (highly likely given the generally poor reading skills demonstrated by atheists around here). This has been answered thoroughly. And it's not like it's difficult. Whose benefit is a test EVER for? The tester's or the testee's?

- Well, call me silly, but we humans test for our own benefit all the time. (hint: it's called science.)

- I'll ask you again: how did we benefit from such a test? I just don't see getting kicked out of Eden and cursed as being as good a thing as you seem to think it is.


Nonsense. Why is it certain that Adam and Eve would disobey if the tree was present?


- I never said this was certain. I said another outcome was certain if god left the tree out. Why? Because there would have been no tree to eat from, of course.


Obtuse again. Created experiential knowledge is a contradiction in terms and therefore a logical impossibility and God does not do logical impossibilities. And don't lay the obvious omnipotence objection on me - it's a garbage argument.

- It's not a garbage argument just because you SAY it is. :wink:

- And okay, I'll give you the logical contradiction being out of god's powers. However, I'm still not sure why experiental knowledge of being cursed is what gives us free will.


And why should God not punish Adam and Eve for their disobedience?

- Hmm. Because they didn't know right from wrong?

- A post or so above, there's a good example given with a baby and a gun. Let me know if you'd like to go over it again.


You most certainly did: "Free will should not be an issue, since it certainly wasn't an issue before Eve ate the fruit. If she didn't have free will before then, then how could she possibly be responsible for her actions?" If Eve DID have free will before the fall, then it is necessarily an issue. But you say it was not an issue, therefore she didn't have it and is therefore not responsible.

- *sigh* Let me clarify myself. Free will is not an issue, because obviously Eve had it. If she didn't, then of course she couldn't be held responsible for eating the fruit, because she would have had no choices. Do you believe the latter? No? Then she had free will. Therefore it's not necessary to put a tree in Eden in order to give it to Adam and Eve.

- Understand?


And whoever said the tree was the granter of free will? What nonsense is that?

- Yes, exactly.

- So what use was it?


Of course not - we flunked the test, remember? And again, the tree had no special qualities.

- We flunked it. So it wasn't very beneficial, then. So why institute it?

- Let me remind you that you're not answering my very simple question. Why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?


Obviously, you weren't able to comprehend the other thread either. No point in trying to explain it to you here, then.

- If you say so. Just don't expect me to take your arguments seriously if you won't back them up. :thumb:

- Let me just ask you this. Why is it called "the tree of knowledge"?


Of course not. God would have taken the firing pin out.

- Of course! How silly of me. :hrm:

- You don't think that introducing something that has the capability to curse mankind is a danger? Perhaps god should have left the firing pin out of the tree as well.


Pathetic attempt at an analogy. Since the tree had no special qualities, it cannot be compared to a loaded gun, which, BTW, is completely harmless if you don't pull the trigger. And yes, your question has been addressed. Plenty of times. Because you don't get it doesn't mean it hasn't been answered.

- Well, it hasn't been answered in this thread by anyone, or by you anywhere at all. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you can cut and paste something for me. I assure you I'll bow out and concede this thread if you can give me a good answer to why god put the tree in Eden.

- Until then, you're just brushing me off.


Obtuser and obtuser. One last time - experiential knowledge cannot be gained without undergoing the appropriate experience.

- Perhaps you missed my other response to you. I'll repeat myself. Why is experiental knowledge important for having free will? I don't have experiental knowledge of hitting myself with a sledge hammer, but that doesn't mean I'm not free.

- Take your time next time, and concentrate on the content instead of the ad hominem. Nobody else in this thread seems to have this problem.

[AtheistArchon]

Because it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was the only thing that Adam and Eve KNEW they were not to touch. The object itself is irrelevent, the point is it was the one thing they were to not do.

- Yes, I understand this. But simply disobeying a command isn't the only thing immoral they could have done. If we suppose that god created them with morals in the first place (i.e. the tree were unnecessary), then they would not be deprived of possible immoral actions.


Hmmm, I see your point, but then it makes one wonder why God would tell them to not do something. Not knowing the difference between good and evil is hardly an answer for disobedience of a direct command. My honest "guess" would be that the tree confirmed the knowledge of good and evil rather than just being the source of it (after all, Satan knew good and evil without eating from the tree). However, I would want to work on this some more.

- That's a very honest answer... and I salute you for it. I certainly don't want to rush any thought processes... heck, I can't rush my own!


Paul says in II Timothy that for Eve it was because she was deceived, but Adam (by contrast) did it understanding he was disobeying God.

- Hmm. Perhaps Eve was decieved. I can certainly see how she could have been. But Adam? Maybe he understood that he was disobeying, but I'm not sure he knew such a thing was "bad".

- Cheers to you! :thumb:

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 02:32 PM
AtheistArchon:



- Well, call me silly, but we humans test for our own benefit all the time. (hint: it's called science.)

- I'll ask you again: how did we benefit from such a test? I just don't see getting kicked out of Eden and cursed as being as good a thing as you seem to think it is.
Ah, the empiricist objection. Here’s a hint for you: not everything’s about science. And again, since you clearly don’t understand: WE FLUNKED THE TEST. So we didn’t benefit from it. If we had passed, we would have known the joy of obedience.


- I never said this was certain. I said another outcome was certain if god left the tree out. Why? Because there would have been no tree to eat from, of course.
You know, it really is rather silly to disclaim your statements when they’re right there for everyone to see. You said: “If god put the tree there, then the outcome was certain. If he didn't, another outcome was certain.”


- And okay, I'll give you the logical contradiction being out of god's powers. However, I'm still not sure why experiental knowledge of being cursed is what gives us free will.
Whoever said that? The only one going on about free will is YOU.


- Hmm. Because they didn't know right from wrong?
Obedience does not require a knowledge of right and wrong.


- A post or so above, there's a good example given with a baby and a gun. Let me know if you'd like to go over it again.
Odd; it seems to fully support my case. Wonder why…could it possibly be that Jaltus and I are in agreement?


- *sigh* Let me clarify myself. Free will is not an issue, because obviously Eve had it. If she didn't, then of course she couldn't be held responsible for eating the fruit, because she would have had no choices. Do you believe the latter? No? Then she had free will. Therefore it's not necessary to put a tree in Eden in order to give it to Adam and Eve.

- Understand?
No, since you think the purpose of the tree was to provide free will (which you have been repeatedly told it was not), and now you’re claiming Eve had free will already. Which is it? The criticism of your writing skills still stands. And again, where did you get this nonsense idea from anyway?


- Yes, exactly.

- So what use was it?
AS A TEST!!!:argh:


- We flunked it. So it wasn't very beneficial, then. So why institute it?
Answered.


- Let me remind you that you're not answering my very simple question. Why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?
AS A TEST!!!:argh::argh:


- Let me just ask you this. Why is it called "the tree of knowledge"?
Because they ended up with knowledge after eating from it. {i}Experiential[/i] knowledge, that is.


- You don't think that introducing something that has the capability to curse mankind is a danger? Perhaps god should have left the firing pin out of the tree as well.
I am getting very tired of repeating myself: THE TREE HAD NO SPECIAL QUALITIES!!!


- Well, it hasn't been answered in this thread by anyone, or by you anywhere at all. If you feel otherwise, perhaps you can cut and paste something for me. I assure you I'll bow out and concede this thread if you can give me a good answer to why god put the tree in Eden.
AS A TEST!!!:argh::argh::argh:


- Perhaps you missed my other response to you. I'll repeat myself. Why is experiential knowledge important for having free will? I don't have experiential knowledge of hitting myself with a sledge hammer, but that doesn't mean I'm not free.
A third time, what is this obsession with the tree and free will?


- Take your time next time, and concentrate on the content instead of the ad hominem. Nobody else in this thread seems to have this problem.
It is not an ad hominem to ridicule bad arguments. In the Biblical paradigm, it’s a challenge, demanding a riposte. Which you have offered only limp-wristedly.

[AtheistArchon]

- JR, why don't we simplify this a little bit for you.

- The question is: why did god put the tree in Eden. Your (repeated) answer is: as a test. Okay. I understand that this is your answer.

- However, you're just not following through here on what this is supposed to mean. According to you, it's not a test for god, because god knows what would happen. Therefore, it's a test that benefits mankind.

- Okay. But we flunked, and the test did NOT benefit us. God knew we would flunk; he knew we wouldn't pass the "test". So... and think about this now... what was the purpose of putting the tree in Eden if god knew we'd flunk such a test?

- You say it was for our benefit, but it didn't benefit us. God knew it wouldn't. So why put us through it? God could have created mankind with this knowledge. Yes, it would not have been experiential... so what? You have not been able to show that experience is necessary to know right from wrong, nor have you been able to show that we need to experience bad things before we have free will.

- Stick to the issues, JR. From my point of view, you're flailing. And calm down! You're going to bust a blood vessel there trying to figure this out. :wink:

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 02:29 PM
Jaltus:

Because it is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It was the only thing that Adam and Eve KNEW they were not to touch. The object itself is irrelevent, the point is it was the one thing they were to not do.

Hmmm, I see your point, but then it makes one wonder why God would tell them to not do something. Not knowing the difference between good and evil is hardly an answer for disobedience of a direct command. My honest "guess" would be that the tree confirmed the knowledge of good and evil rather than just being the source of it (after all, Satan knew good and evil without eating from the tree). However, I would want to work on this some more.

I'm a little surprised you don't make the connection, Jaltus. You have all the bits put together bar the conclusion. The tree didn't confirm KG&E, it provided the opportunity to get it. How so? By experience, as discussed in the other thread that AA claims to have read. Knowledge comes in two varieties: experiential and abstract. But abstract KG&E is a divine attribute and not available to anyone else, so experiential knowledge it has to be. Thus, by being disobedient, they found out what it is like to be disobedient. Ergo, they found out the difference between right and wrong and further experienced shame. This is how Satan got his knowledge as well - by rebellion (an extreme form of disobedience).

[AtheistArchon]

Knowledge comes in two varieties: experiential and abstract. But abstract KG&E is a divine attribute and not available to anyone else,

- Poppycock.

- Have you ever jumped off of the Empire State building? Have you ever experienced that? Then I suppose you have no idea what would happen to you unless you did it. You have to experience it to understand it, right?

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 03:28 PM
AtheistArchon:

what was the purpose of putting the tree in Eden if god knew we'd flunk such a test?
Because we DIDN'T know!!!


- You say it was for our benefit, but it didn't benefit us. God knew it wouldn't. So why put us through it? God could have created mankind with this knowledge. Yes, it would not have been experiential... so what? You have not been able to show that experience is necessary to know right from wrong, nor have you been able to show that we need to experience bad things before we have free will.
Why do you keep talking as if I am claiming that the Fall was what provided free will? It's you who claimed this! I have asked you over and over again where you are getting this bizarre notion from, and you continue to refuse to answer. I am beginning to suspect you are a troll.

[johnransom]

03-14-2003 @ 03:35 PM
AtheistArchon:



- Poppycock.

- Have you ever jumped off of the Empire State building? Have you ever experienced that? Then I suppose you have no idea what would happen to you unless you did it. You have to experience it to understand it, right?
Fale analogy. We are talking about moral knowledge. There is no intrinsic moral issue in taking a swan dive. There are moral consequences, of course, but it isnot necessary to experience these directly; they can also be experienced indirectly via observation. Try again.

[AtheistArchon]

AtheistArchon:

what was the purpose of putting the tree in Eden if god knew we'd flunk such a test?

Because we DIDN'T know!!!

- So what? God did, and he initiated the test. Why? He could have avoided it by giving us knowledge of good and evil when we were created. Such knowledge need not be experienced, as you will agree. It can be rationalized.


Why do you keep talking as if I am claiming that the Fall was what provided free will? It's you who claimed this! I have asked you over and over again where you are getting this bizarre notion from, and you continue to refuse to answer. I am beginning to suspect you are a troll.

- Just answer the question please, and quit dodging. The mentioning of free will was done in order to head off arguments in that vein. Just because you didn't understand my first analogy doesn't mean I'm accusing you of using that argument.

- Why was the tree necessary, JR?

[AtheistArchon]

Fale analogy. We are talking about moral knowledge. There is no intrinsic moral issue in taking a swan dive. There are moral consequences, of course, but it isnot necessary to experience these directly; they can also be experienced indirectly via observation. Try again.

- Okay, I'll run with this. MORAL knowledge needs to be experienced... okay. Murdered anyone lately? No? Then how do you know it's bad to do so?

- Let me anticipate the answer to this one. "We can anticipate morality now, but Adam and Eve could not because the weren't created with morals." Is that close? I'll answer it even if it's not what you were going to say. The reason this answer doesn't work is because we only have your assertion that Adam and Eve couldn't learn without experience, nothing else. Perhaps they weren't totally human? Because to be human is to be able to reason.

- Maybe god should have created Adam and Eve a few stages along, like you and I, instead of having to curse him (and us!) for achieving the knowledge he was supposed to gain all along, by divine plan.

- What you're telling me, in essence, is that Adam knew a lot of things; how to walk, talk, eat, sleep, and care for the garden that god had created... but he didn't know that disobeying god was a bad thing. He just couldn't reason out the fact that eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge would be an unsmart thing to do. JR, how can such a being as this possibly be held responsible for moral decisions?

- Think about it now. God judged humanity based upon the immoral decisions of Adam and Eve, who by your definition had no capacity for moral thought. Does that really make sense? Is that what you believe?

[Jaltus]

But abstract KG&E is a divine attribute and not available to anyone else, so experiential knowledge it has to be. Thus, by being disobedient, they found out what it is like to be disobedient. Ergo, they found out the difference between right and wrong and further experienced shame. This is how Satan got his knowledge as well - by rebellion (an extreme form of disobedience).I think you are going a bit outside the text for this, so I do not necessarily agree. As I said, I'd like to look into it before I make a hasty judgment. It seems like too much of what you are saying is extratextually based, so I am not going to buy it without some harmonization and thought first.

[stevencarrwork]

03-14-2003 @ 07:36 PM
Jaltus:

Good grief! The entire reason that Jesus was so outstanding was that He was tempted to do evil, but never did. Hence why it was meritorious! Another poorly conceived question.



Are you saying Jesus could have done evil? It was not in his nature to do evil. It was impossible for him to do evil. Therefore, your argument means Jesus had no merit for his good works.


I can imagine the conversation.

Jaltus:- 'Can you kill this baby for 100 dollars, my Lord?

Jesus :- 'Yes, I can do that.'

Most Christians would say that the second line rings false, and Jesus would say 'No, I can never do that.'

[Jaltus]

If Jesus was not truly tempted, then Jesus was not fully human. The orthodox faith calls for a Jesus who was tempted just like us in every way, but remained perfect. Thus, He was able to sin, but did not. The ability to sin came from being human, the not sinning came from being God.

Frankly, orthodoxy is on my side.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 05:39 AM
Jaltus:

If Jesus was not truly tempted, then Jesus was not fully human. The orthodox faith calls for a Jesus who was tempted just like us in every way, but remained perfect. Thus, He was able to sin, but did not. The ability to sin came from being human, the not sinning came from being God.

Frankly, orthodoxy is on my side.

And Christian philosophy is on my side.

Jesus was not able to sin. There is no logically possible world in which Jesus would have sinned. How can something be possible when it can never happen?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/dfwvanInwagen2.html

Christian philosophers like van Inwagen are adamant that somebody has no free will to do X, if they are unable to bring about a world in which X happens.

Therefore, Jesus had no free will when it came to choosing evil.

I quote van Inwagen 'From this conclusion it was no great leap to the slightly stronger conclusion that, if one was faced with a choice between A and B, and one was aware of considerations that could be brought in support of both alternatives, and if the considerations that supported A seemed to one clearly and decisively to outweigh the considerations that supported B, then one would simply not be able to do B. '

So Jesus was simply not able to do sin (assuming he thought good was better supported than sin)

[AtheistArchon]

- Before I start a new thread, is there anyone else who would care to comment on why god placed the tree of knowledge in Eden?

- Just being thorough. :smile:

[psychopath]

I actually agree with stevencarrwork on this one - I do not think Jesus could have sinned. "Could have" implies a possibility. So if Jesus could have possibly sinned, what if he WOULD have?

1) He would not be God, because God cannot sin. But he WAS God, so this seems illogical.

2) He would not have been the perfect sacrifice and Savior for mankind; however, since, I believe, God prophesied that he would be, and God cannot be wrong, this is also impossible.

Since these two consequences would have been the inevitable effect of Jesus sinning, and since they themselves are impossible occurences, it follows, IMO, that what would have brought them about, i.e., Jesus sinning, was also impossible.

[Jaltus]

Sorry, but I'll go with the biblical text over a philsopher any day of the week.

[psychopath]

Sorry, but I'll go with the biblical text over a philsopher any day of the week.

I agree. But as far as I know, the Biblical text is not incontrovertible in saying that Jesus had the ability to sin. And if it is not specifically clear one way or the other, I don't see any problem with utilizing reason to draw a conclusion on the issue.

[psychopath]

Another possible answer may be because god wanted to test mankind. But this puzzles me... isn't god supposed to be omniscient? What was god testing for if he knew how it would turn out? God shouldn't have to "test"... god is supposed to already know.

The question you seem to be asking, in essence, is "Why would God test them, if he had the omniscience to know the test's results?". Here's how I might go about answering it:

One reason God created man is because He wants to be glorified by other creatures. Since the Christian God is a perfectly moral being, another creature (in this case, man) can glorify him by acting (morally speaking) in accordance with God's will. By doing so, one recongizes God for the perfect being that He is, and glorifies his greatness.

But to be glorified by a being, that being must have free will. If you created a little robot that was programmed to run around and say "AtheistArchon is the best!", would you truly feel glorified? No, because you MADE the robot say that - in essence, you are glorifiying yourself (through an intermediate). Similarly, God could not be glorified by us if he simply predetermined that we would do so.

To tie this together: God is glorified when we act in accordance with his perfect moral standard, but this is only possible if we have free will. Therefore, it would seem as though mankind could not glorify God without being presented with a free moral decision. Such a choice implies the ability of acting in accord, or disaccord, with God's moral standard. In the Garden, this took the form of the Tree of Knowledge: not eating of it was to act in accord, and to eat of it was to act in disaccord.

I think your rebuttal regarding God's omniscience misses the point. God may have known beforehand the outcome of the test, but in order to be glorified he has to give us the ability to make free moral decisions. Thus, the Tree, or something similar to it, was required.

[Woman]

Johnransom:


Of course not - we flunked the test, remember? And again, the tree had no special qualities.

The tree had no special qualitites? God lied to them?

You do realize, don't you, that many of your brethren totally disagree with you. They believe that the tree had the quality of "opening their eyes" because it DID contain the knowledge of good and evil.

That other tree? The Tree of Life? Did it have no special properties either?

I am NOT just trying to annoy Christians with these questions. It was because I never got any consistant answers that I stopped believing.

I think what has happened is that too much of that which is NOT clear in the Bible has been decided upon by men who have now painted themselves into theological corners.

Even if I accept one or another explanation of why there had to be a test in Eden and that, having failed it we're all cursed...then why didn't God make sure that when he was revealing all this to Moses that it was clear, understandable, unambiguous? We're already cursed...does it amuse him to also keep us confused?

[Socrates]

JohnRansom:

Of course not - we flunked the test, remember? And again, the tree had no special qualities.
Woman replies:
The tree had no special qualitites? God lied to them?Not at all. JR is perfectly correct -- it was the act of disobedience which God said would result in their death. It doesn't depend on the tree, whatever it was.

You do realize, don't you, that many of your brethren totally disagree with you. I don't see why JR should be faulted for what other brethren think. They believe that the tree had the quality of "opening their eyes" because it DID contain the knowledge of good and evil. It was their act of disobedience which did that. As John Macarthur said, evil was known in the same way as an oncologist knows about cancer—not by personal experience but by knowledge about it (in God’s case, by foreknowledge). But after Adam and Eve sinned, they knew evil in the same way as a cancer sufferer knows cancer—by sad personal experience.

I am NOT just trying to annoy Christians with these questions. It was because I never got any consistant answersOh, I never realised that the truth of Christianity depended on the omniscience of every one of its adherents. that I stopped believing. Judging by your posts, I don't think you really wanted answers. You seem a well-balanced woman -- chips on both your soldiers.

I think what has happened is that too much of that which is NOT clear in the Bible has been decided upon by men who have now painted themselves into theological corners.More likely, people are beginning to rediscover what the Bible meant to its original authors. This is what's important. And where we don't know, it's no shame to propose models as long as they are held loosely.

Even if I accept one or another explanation of why there had to be a test in Eden and that, having failed it we're all cursed...then why didn't God make sure that when he was revealing all this to Moses that it was clear, understandable, unambiguous? We're already cursed...does it amuse him to also keep us confused?It was understandable. It's not Moses' fault that modern western provincialist chronological snobs have problems.

[AtheistArchon]

- Some new players. :smile: I thought this thread might pick back up again.


But to be glorified by a being, that being must have free will. If you created a little robot that was programmed to run around and say "AtheistArchon is the best!", would you truly feel glorified? No, because you MADE the robot say that - in essence, you are glorifiying yourself (through an intermediate). Similarly, God could not be glorified by us if he simply predetermined that we would do so.

- Okay, let me digest this first part here. God, a perfect being, creates humans... simply in order to sing his praises, if they want to. :huh: Perhaps we can study this character trait in another thread, but for now I understand.

- Free will. You're saying that god put the tree in Eden in order to give mankind free will (for whichever odd reason).


To tie this together: God is glorified when we act in accordance with his perfect moral standard, but this is only possible if we have free will. Therefore, it would seem as though mankind could not glorify God without being presented with a free moral decision. Such a choice implies the ability of acting in accord, or disaccord, with God's moral standard. In the Garden, this took the form of the Tree of Knowledge: not eating of it was to act in accord, and to eat of it was to act in disaccord.

- But the tree was not necessary for such a moral decision to be available, yes? After all, Adam had the opportunity to, say, murder Eve from the first moment she was created. Is this not a moral choice? If we're assuming (and I think we are) that Adam and Eve had free will all along, then tree of knowledge was not the granter of free will; they already had it. So what was it for? What did the fruit do?

- Additionally, we're still faced with the problem that god did know what would happen if he put the tree in the garden. Did god want Adam and Eve to act in his accord, or not? If so, then why put them to a test he knew they would fail? If not, then why punish them for simply doing what he planned all along?


Not at all. JR is perfectly correct -- it was the act of disobedience which God said would result in their death. It doesn't depend on the tree, whatever it was.

- Not according to the bible. It doesn't say "if you disobey me you'll die", it says "if you eat the fruit of this tree, you'll die".

- I'm open to correction, of course. Please give the verse.


It was their act of disobedience which did that. As John Macarthur said, evil was known in the same way as an oncologist knows about cancer—not by personal experience but by knowledge about it (in God’s case, by foreknowledge). But after Adam and Eve sinned, they knew evil in the same way as a cancer sufferer knows cancer—by sad personal experience.

- I'll ask you the same question I asked JR: what does experiencing something bad personally give you? Are you somehow diminished because you have never suffered a bowling ball to the knee? (Perhaps you have, in which case, substitute anything sufficiently painful that you're never personally experienced but aren't eager to try out.) :smile:

- The way I see it, Adam and Eve gained nothing but a curse and some personal knowledge of how to tick off a deity (which to them was, apparently, a bad thing). Is this what god planned? More importantly, was it necessary? Why?

- Perhaps you have an answer to my question, Soc. Why did god put the tree of knowledge in Eden?

[edited for silly spelling mistakes]

[psychopath]

God, a perfect being, creates humans... simply in order to sing his praises, if they want to. Perhaps we can study this character trait in another thread, but for now I understand.

Well, I think that's an oversimplification and misrepresentation of what I said, but perhaps this issue should be discussed on a different thread.


Free will. You're saying that god put the tree in Eden in order to give mankind free will (for whichever odd reason).

No. Adam and Eve's had free will from the beginning, and it was independent of the existence of the Tree. However, the Tree, and God's commandment regarding it, gave them the opportunity to either accept and glorify God or not.


But the tree was not necessary for such a moral decision to be available, yes? After all, Adam had the opportunity to, say, murder Eve from the first moment she was created. Is this not a moral choice? If we're assuming (and I think we are) that Adam and Eve had free will all along, then tree of knowledge was not the granter of free will; they already had it. So what was it for? What did the fruit do?

But God's command regarding the Tree is the key. Prior to this, IIRC, God hadn't given Adam and Eve any moral commandments (thou shalt not kill, steal, etc.). So if Adam, say, lied to Eve, I don't see how God could have taken this as Adam rejecting Him, because it's not as though God had told Adam that lying was wrong. But by giving the commandment regarding the Tree, God imparted some moral knowledge to Adam and Eve (eating of it is bad, not eating of it is good), and thus set up sufficient parameters for a moral decision that would either glorify or reject God. Without this direct order/testing from God, I don't see how Adam and Eve could have truly glorified Him, because, as far as I know, prior to it they really didn’t know how God wanted them to act.


Did god want Adam and Eve to act in his accord, or not?

Yes.


If so, then why put them to a test he knew they would fail?

So God really had three choices:

1) Make Adam and Eve not fail the test.

2) Give them a new test, since He knew they would fail this one.

3) Let them fail the test of the Tree.

Option #1 is obviously unviable, because it takes away their free will. Option #2 gives two possible immediate outcomes: they either pass or fail this new test. God knows beforehand which will occur. If they pass it, great; if not, God has these three options again.

However, this still involves, indirectly taking away their free will. Correct me if I’m wrong, but, as you would have it, God should not give a test that he knows his subjects will fail. So option #2, essentially, turns into God changing the test until he finds one He knows they will pass. He is foreordaining that they will choose correctly, because he is ACTIVELY disallowing them from failing. The key here is the difference between foreknowing (a passive process) and foreordaining (an active process).

So that leaves only option #3, which the God of the Bible chose.


If not, then why punish them for simply doing what he planned all along?

God’s foreknowledge does not detract from human responsibility of action.

[Woman]

I have a question, for anyone who wants to answer. I have been told that, unlike some books of the Bible, Psalms for instance, Genesis is not written nor meant to be read as an allegory. I have thought at certain times in my life that I could accept the metaphorical story in Genesis in a very broad sense. But, especially among orthodox or fundamental Christians today, metaphors don't exist in this book. Which brings me to my question.

Did the serpent really talk? Did all snakes talk then? Was this a special snake and if so why? I know that many people think the snake is a metaphor for Satan, but that clearly is not an option. Why is this thought so widespread? Just what was this snake doing there anyway and was it part of that which God saw was "good?"

[Socrates]

Woman writes:
I have a question, for anyone who wants to answer. I have been told that, unlike some books of the Bible, Psalms for instance, Genesis is not written nor meant to be read as an allegory.You were told correctly. May I suggest the introductory article Should Genesis be taken literally? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1231.asp) which explains the different types of language in Scripture? Here is something I've written before:

The Hebrew grammar of Genesis shows that Genesis 1–11 has the same literary style as Genesis 12–50, which no one doubts is historical narrative. For example:
The early chapters of Genesis frequently use the construction called the ‘waw consecutive’, usually an indicator of historical sequence.
Genesis 1–11 also has several other trademarks of historical narrative, such as ‘accusative particles’ (’eth) that mark the objects of verbs, and many terms that are carefully defined.
The Hebrew verb grammar of Genesis 1 has a particular feature that exactly what is expected if it were representing a series of past events. That is, only the first verb is perfect, while the verbs that continue the narrative are imperfect. In Genesis 1, the first verb is bara’ (create) which is perfect, while the subsequent verbs that move the narrative forward are a series of imperfects, including wayyomer (‘And … said’, v. 3), and wayehi (‘and there was’, v. 3).
Parallelisms, which are characteristic of Hebrew poetry, are absent from Genesis, except where people are cited, e.g. Genesis 4:23. If Genesis were truly poetic, it would use parallelisms throughout.
Everywhere else Genesis 1-11 is cited in the Bible, it is treated as history. E.g., the days of Creation Week are the basis for the days of the working week in the 4th Commandment, Jesus cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to teach on marriage, Luke 3 and Hebrews 11 treat Genesis 1-11 personages as equally historical with later ones, Paul accepts the reality of Adam bringing death to teach on the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15, Paul justifies his commands on men and women teaching in Church with the historical fact of Adam's creation before Eve and the fact that Eve was deceived and Adam not.
Then Woman continues:But, especially among orthodox or fundamental Christians today, metaphors don't exist in this book. Which brings me to my question. No, we don't deny metaphors (or idioms for that matter), since historical accounts can have them. But we find in Genesis that the account is very straightforward.Did the serpent really talk? Did all snakes talk then? Was this a special snake and if so why? I know that many people think the snake is a metaphor for Satan, but that clearly is not an option.It's most likely that Satan possessed the snake. That there is a connection is shown in Revelation 20:2. Why is this thought so widespread? Just what was this snake doing there anyway and was it part of that which God saw was "good?"No, God pronounced the world "very good" (Hebrew tov me'od) at the end of six days, and blessed the Seventh. Therefore the fall of Satan must have happened after that. Not too long after though, because it must have happened before Cain was conceived. This can't have taken too long, because Adam and Eve were told to reproduce, and while they were sinless they would not have delayed too long, and with perfect unmutated bodies, conception would have been easy. So the Fall of Man must have been only a few days after Creation Week, and the Fall of Satan in the narrow window between.

[johnransom]

Today @ 03:08 AM
Socrates:

The Hebrew grammar of Genesis shows that Genesis 1–11 has the same literary style as Genesis 12–50, which no one doubts is historical narrative. For example...

Hey! Save this stuff for our debate, Soc! Which is gonna start when, BTW?