Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-07-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

It seems we are asking Adam to do the impossible,that is make a good choice by remaining obedient to God and do not make a bad choice by being disobedient when he has no concept of good or evil

Yes. It was a set-up from the beginning. There was no reasonable possibility for the couple to pass the test.

sonofone · 01-07-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

Punishment is bad just as reward is good. Adam was a mental incompetent when it came to his awareness of good vs evil. So if I tell a person such as this that something bad will happen if you do it how can they be place any value on this statement, without context?

It seems we are asking Adam to do the impossible, that is make a good choice by remaining obedient to God and do not make a bad choice by being disobedient when he has no concept of good or evil.

First of all, it is impossible to reasonably verify that Adam and Eve existed. Second of all, the claims that God is merciful, and plans to send skeptics to hell of eternity without parole, are contradictory. The claims cannot both be true unless we redefine the word "merciful." Even if the Bible did not claim that God is merciful, I would never accept a God who plans to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole. In my opinion, nothing could be more detestible than eternal vengeance without parole.

Hey Johnnie I was trying to return to the original purpose of your post,which was discussing bible inerrancy and you seem hell bent on taking every opportunity you can @ knocking down God.

I get that you are not God biggest fan or the bible.:notworthy: But what do you think of the question I raise? Humor me would you

Johnny Skeptic · 01-07-2008, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

Punishment is bad just as reward is good. Adam was a mental incompetent when it came to his awareness of good vs evil. So if I tell a person such as this that something bad will happen if you do it how can they be place any value on this statement, without context?

It seems we are asking Adam to do the impossible, that is make a good choice by remaining obedient to God and do not make a bad choice by being disobedient when he has no concept of good or evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

First of all, it is impossible to reasonably verify that Adam and Eve existed. Second of all, the claims that God is merciful, and plans to send skeptics to hell of eternity without parole, are contradictory. The claims cannot both be true unless we redefine the word "merciful." Even if the Bible did not claim that God is merciful, I would never accept a God who plans to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole. In my opinion, nothing could be more detestible than eternal vengeance without parole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

Hey Johnnie I was trying to return to the original purpose of your post, which was discussing Bible inerrancy and you seem hell bent on taking every opportunity you can at knocking down God.

I get that you are not God's biggest fan or the Bible. But what do you think of the question I raise? Humor me would you.

What does the story of Adam and Eve have to do with inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Bible? You have already admitted that you do not believe that the Bible is inerrant.

rhutchin · 01-07-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Adam understood the law even without the comprehensive understanding of good and evil that he was to gain from violating that law.

This is simply incoherent.

How can one know one should (ie it is good) obey God without understanding the difference between good and evil?

Adam should have obeyed God simply because God is God. A person does not need to understand the difference between good and evil in order to obey God (as least no one has explained why it would be necessary). It is not a question of obedience being good (i.e., to your advantage) as it is a matter of respect. Adam need only have had greater respect for God than he had for himself and he would have obeyed God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's say that you tell your 3 yr old not to go out into the street because he will be punished if he does. That you tell him means that you think he understands or at least understands the connection to punishment (regardless, Adam certainly understood the restriction).

Adam is threatened with death but, according to you, he would have had no knowledge of what "death" meant since he had seen none.

I see no reason why Adam could not understand death even without having personally observed anything to die.

rhutchin · 01-07-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

You're still in my mind left with a fundamental flaw in thinking.In order to make a value judgment,you have to have a basic understanding of either side of your choice.

If Adam did not know good or evil how could he come to know obedience verses disobedience.How could he measure it? How could I hold a mental incompetent responsible for his choices?

So if I say don't do this or something bad will happen,if you have no way of understanding or appreciating good from bad how can you make a rational choice?

Why would you make obedience to God a "value judgment"? Do you mean to say that we humans might need to second guess God or that God might command something that would not be right? It may be that you need to re-evaluate your conception of God.

God instructed Adam on what he was not to do (do not eat) and the consequences of disobedience (you will die). Is there any reason why we should think that Adam did not understand the situation that he faced? You seem to be making Adam somewhat simple-minded with a child-like intellect. I don't see a basis for this position.

If you tell me not to do X because something bad will happen, I can make a decision strictly based on your character. If you have shown yourself to be a person I could trust, I would heed your warning. I would not have to know anything beyond that.

sonofone · 01-07-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

You're still in my mind left with a fundamental flaw in thinking.In order to make a value judgment,you have to have a basic understanding of either side of your choice.

If Adam did not know good or evil how could he come to know obedience verses disobedience.How could he measure it? How could I hold a mental incompetent responsible for his choices?

So if I say don't do this or something bad will happen,if you have no way of understanding or appreciating good from bad how can you make a rational choice?

Why would you make obedience to God a "value judgment"? Do you mean to say that we humans might need to second guess God or that God might command something that would not be right? It may be that you need to re-evaluate your conception of God.

God instructed Adam on what he was not to do (do not eat) and the consequences of disobedience (you will die). Is there any reason why we should think that Adam did not understand the situation that he faced? You seem to be making Adam somewhat simple-minded with a child-like intellect. I don't see a basis for this position.

If you tell me not to do X because something bad will happen, I can make a decision strictly based on your character. If you have shown yourself to be a person I could trust, I would heed your warning. I would not have to know anything beyond that.

Without a knowledge of good or evil all Adam would be left with is faith or the absence of faith.The value judgment occurred once Eve was confronted with conflicting information.Notice there appeared to be no conflict in obeying God when his word was the only word they had.Once another view was presented,she was confronted with a choice of which one to believe.Herein lies the value judgment.

Whose words should she believe,and what would she base this on? Surely not good choice,bad choice as they lacked this concept.So they had to place value in somebody's word over the other,which she did in choosing to believe the serpent,which the bible says was an act of deception.

So my question is how was she in a position to make such a judgment when you had no way of evaluating which choice was good or bad?

Amaleq13 · 01-07-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Adam should have obeyed God simply because God is God.

You are begging the question here.

ETA: What would "God" have meant to Adam, anyway?

Quote:

A person does not need to understand the difference between good and evil in order to obey God (as least no one has explained why it would be necessary).

Whether you phrase it as "obedience" or "respect" or some other term, you are ignoring the inherent value which is dependent upon an understanding of the different between right and wrong.

Quote:

I see no reason why Adam could not understand death even without having personally observed anything to die.

Then you aren't thinking very hard about it. Ever tried to explain the concept to a small child? Presenting it as a consequence without explanation is an utter failure on God's part and clearly sets up the situation as a no-win for the couple.

They had no way to know that what they were doing was wrong and had no possible comprehension of the consequences.

Dogfish · 01-07-2008, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonofone

You say Adam understood the law even without the understanding of good and evil.I'm not saying you're wrong here,but help me make sense of this.

If my 3 year old repeats a word he heard that is profanity,he is not held accountable for it as he has no grasp of the concept of good word bad word.Now if I correct my 3 y.o. because he has a conscience and is aware of good and evil if only on the basis of good stimuli vs,bad stimuli then he is in a position to begin distinguishing the difference.Even then it becomes a learning process for which he will receive plenty of mercy.As he is just beginning to learn.

Now if Adam has no concept of good or evil,then he has no internal compass to help him navigate good choice or bad choice.So if he makes a bad choice,where is the mercy?

Would he not be equally as innocent if not more so than my 3 y.o, since at this point he does not even possess the conscience that helps him discern good choice bad choice?

Let's say that you tell your 3 yr old not to go out into the street because he will be punished if he does. That you tell him means that you think he understands or at least understands the connection to punishment (regardless, Adam certainly understood the restriction). If your 3 yr old goes into the street, do you punish him? Do you have mercy? You wouldn't because you have a greater understanding than your 3 yr old. You carry out the punishment because a 3 yr old can link his behavior to the punishment and modify his behavior. Adam disobeyed a command that he understood. Whether it was good or evil to eat the fruit is determined not by the character of the fruit by by God and what He determined Adam should not do. To obey, Adam merely had to know what God had said without understanding any philosophical rationale for the command or its relation to good and evil.

If I were to punish him and all his generations for it, I would be evil.

rhutchin · 01-07-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let's say that you tell your 3 yr old not to go out into the street because he will be punished if he does. That you tell him means that you think he understands or at least understands the connection to punishment (regardless, Adam certainly understood the restriction). If your 3 yr old goes into the street, do you punish him? Do you have mercy? You wouldn't because you have a greater understanding than your 3 yr old. You carry out the punishment because a 3 yr old can link his behavior to the punishment and modify his behavior. Adam disobeyed a command that he understood. Whether it was good or evil to eat the fruit is determined not by the character of the fruit by by God and what He determined Adam should not do. To obey, Adam merely had to know what God had said without understanding any philosophical rationale for the command or its relation to good and evil.

If I were to punish him and all his generations for it, I would be evil.

What if you provided a way for him and all his generations to escape punishment and let them decide whether they wanted to take that escape route to escape the punishment?

rhutchin · 01-07-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Adam should have obeyed God simply because God is God.

You are begging the question here.

Begging the question identifies a logical fallacy. It does not make the premises or conclusion false statements. It just means that you have to provide greater definition, so let's make it, Adam should have obeyed God simply because God is trustworthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

ETA: What would "God" have meant to Adam, anyway?

It would have been that entity that walked with him is the garden in the cool of the evening, brought all the animals to him to be named, and made Eve from his rib, among other interactions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A person does not need to understand the difference between good and evil in order to obey God (as least no one has explained why it would be necessary).

Whether you phrase it as "obedience" or "respect" or some other term, you are ignoring the inherent value which is dependent upon an understanding of the different between right and wrong.

If you can develop such an argument, we can look at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I see no reason why Adam could not understand death even without having personally observed anything to die.

Then you aren't thinking very hard about it. Ever tried to explain the concept to a small child? Presenting it as a consequence without explanation is an utter failure on God's part and clearly sets up the situation as a no-win for the couple.

They had no way to know that what they were doing was wrong and had no possible comprehension of the consequences.

Your argument seems to depend on Adam being like a small child. You are simply contriving circumstances that do not have to be true in order to get the conclusion you want.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.