scigirl

I thought of this question when reading through the Christian God is a Liar thread.

So Adam and Eve were supposedly immortal in the Garden of Eden, correct? Yet they still had free will (they chose to eat the fruit of the tree).

My question is - can you truly have "free will" if you are immortal?
Free will implies to me that different actions will have different consequences, thus you choose your consequences by choosing your actions. If action X, Y, and Z all lead to outcome A, then free will seems rather silly and unnecessary.

If they were immortal, then there were a lot of consequences that were not available to them. Adam could have climbed the highest tree and jumped off, with no ill effects (if he was truly immortal). Eve could have held her breath underwater without drowning. Plus if there were no diseases, or no toxins, (except for the one tree), they wouldn't have the added learning experiences of "trial and error" that current humans have. So how on earth would they have obtained the skills for obeying their God?

Contrast with us mortal humans - we learn by the consequences of our actions. We touch something hot - it burns us, then we avoid touching it in the future. We disobey our parents, we get punished. And so on. No one is born with this knowledge - it is learned behavior, *because* we have consequences. Because action X, Y and Z have very different outcomes.

It isn't clear what stage of intellect Adam and Eve had in the Garden, but it doesn't seem that God equipped them that well with behavior knowledge. To me, the they are child-like in their thinking. So here's God, the wonderful parent:

Adam and Eve, because they are immortal, are incapable of having the same action/reaction learning that us mortal humans have. So - they run around doing whatever they want, with no consequences. Except for one - they make their first mistake - as all children do - and God punishes them by making them mortal, and all their descendants mortal, introducing disease and suffering to humanity forever! Damn!! When my 2-year-old disobeys me the first time, I hope I'm a bit more compassionate.

Scigirl

Edited to add - I wasn't sure if this was the right forum for this, but it was inspired by a thread here so I started it here. Oh - and no I don't have kids - the 2 year old is hypothetical!

Vinnie

Post it at TWeb. You might get a few conservatives to respond to this. I only know of only one sporadic poster in here who thinks the Genesis myth(s) is(are?) history.

Though I critiqued Adam and Eve in my original sin article. I will make that its own piece soon but here it is:

[2] Historicity-Intrinsically Unlikely


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

First, 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.

Second, 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?

Third, 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 destroy it rather than sit around guarding it?

To go even further without beating around the bush: there is no valid positive historical evidence regarding the details of the Genesis myth. None whatsoever and all the evidence points against it!

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

Fifth, the cursing of the snake makes little sense. See Genesis 3:14:

" So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this,

"Cursed are you above all the livestock
and all the wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life. "


But one should immediately ask why did God curse snakes? Most Christians think the snake was the Devil. If the devil possessed a snake to tempt Adam and Eve why would God curse snakes afterwards? This makes little sense and is another indicator that the Garden Story should be seen as mythical.


Sixth, 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 African 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 another African myth, this one belonging to the Yoruba people. Oblata, king of the White Cloth wished to fill Olukin's empty kingdom which consisted of nothing but sea and marshes. Olukin was the sister of Olorun (the most high). Oblata sought Olorun's counsel on how he could go down and fill Olukin's kingdom. He was sent to Orunmila who told him that he needed to get a golden chain with a hook on the end.

It was lowered down to just over the water. Oblata had a sack which included the things Orunmila told him to bring. He pulled out a snail shell filled with sand and dumped it on the water, and there was dry land. next Oblata pulled out a white hen which scratched at the sand and helped spread out the extent of the land. Once there was enough land Oblata jumped down. Next he planted a palm nut that he had in his sack. The final item in his sack was a black cat to keep him company.

Oblata sowed crops, built a house and made wine from the pine nuts he harvested. Then Oblata went to work and formed people out of clay. he did not breathe life into them as he did not have the power to do so. Oldumare did that.

But while Oblata was working he became very thirst and started drinking wine. he kept working and drinking and got drunker and drunker as the day progressed. "Some of the people he molded were malformed, some missing limbs, and some twisted. Since Obatala was drunk, he didn't notice that his work was marred. So he blew life into the figures, then passed out.

When Obatala awoke the next morning, he saw what he had done and regretted it. Then he vowed to never drink again. This is why children of Obatala must avoid alcohol. It's also why Obatala is the protector of the crippled, deformed and albinos." [Information From Jackalope, poster on II Forums, via Tales of Yoruba Gods and Heros, by Harold Courlander]


4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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)

9. 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."

Seventh, modern science.

I could add more to this (e.g. the talking serpent) but it should be clear that there are serious impediments to viewing the Genesis myth as literal history. The Genesis myth has many of the "fantastic" claims that are found in other creations stories that are dismissed without a second thought. It deserves no special historical privledges that are not granted to any other ancient texts.

Vinnie

yguy

No skills were required. The command was not to do something, but to NOT do it.

I submit that we are all born with the knowledge that our parents know more than we do. So was Adam, but he conveniently forgot about that.

The mistake by Adam was not comparable to a kid spilling milk - unless the kid tried to blame his sister for it, and the parent for catching him in his excuse. If the parent failed to apologize to the kid for making him feel bad, the kid could possibly hold a grudge against the parent. Now, because he needs validation for what he is, he joins a gang and turns into a drug addict in an effort to deny the reality of the hellish existence his idiotic rebellion has led him to. Then he shacks up with some crack whore, giving his own child a more nightmarish beginning than he would think of wishing upon himself.

joedad

No winkie face?

ex_libres

You bring up a question that many people do not understand about God and Free will. One would think things like "Why give a creature we created the ability to rebel against us?" Good Question. However, you make a mistake in your questioning.

Followed by:You are mistaking freedom of choice with cause and effect. I will try to clear things up for you regardless. Picture yourself as a parent; you may already be all the better. Now you create children and as a plus, you can design all their characteristics the way you see fit. You love them dearly and wish them to love you back so you hard wire into them that they have to love you no matter what. Whould this be truley love, or is your child like a doll with a pull string? I think you know the answer. We must choose to love in order for love to be real. Without that choice there is no love. So, how did God fix this problem, he gave us free will; we are free to follow his wishes and we are free not to. Both decisions have consiquences though. If Adam and Eve followed Gods wishes, his will, we would be enjoying paradise right now. Alas though, Adam and Eve, like all humans throughout time at one point or another chose self will over God's will and in so doing corrupted God's creation. The rest of the bible largely deals with the redemption of humankind because of this act. Again and again God shows himself as a God that loves us, even loves us enough to let us make the wrong choices according to our will at the same time offering forgivness. Remember forgivness does the forgiven more good than the forgiver. Hope this helps.

scigirl

Vinnie,

Thanks for that insightful explanation.

Hi ex libres,
I've heard this analogy before, and I think it fails for one main reason: Eternal hell. I'm not a parent, but if and when I become one, then yes I want my child to make choices on their own and be free. However, I did not personally create the bad consequences that my child may face someday (prisons, the streets, Colorado State University - I'm a CU student, can you tell?)

God, however, created eternal punishment, correct, for those who disobey Him? That doesn't sound like free will to me. That sounds like an abusive parent who needs to have his children taken away from him and put in a foster home.

I argued with a similar analogy a while back and I'll just re-quote it (here's the original thread: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=4

Albert's argument:
my rebuttal:
It's interesting that you state this:
That may be true, however, did you know that Note: In the Bible, words having to do with killing significantly outnumber words having to do with love.**

** Source: Donald Morgan's Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems

scigirl

Evangelion

I know of no Christian who would claim that Adam and Eve were immortal.

The very idea is patently ridiculous.

scigirl

From Answers in Genesis (who claim to be Christian):
I couldn't agree more.

scigirl

Evangelion

scigirl - it's probably worth pointing out that your quote from AIG does not mention immortality anywhere. It simply states that death did not exist before the Fall.

Logically, their position does not in fact require Adam and Eve to be immortal. It only requires them to possess an indefinite lifespan, which is something else entirely.

For example, if Adam had fallen off a cliff, he would have died. Why? Because he was mortal. But would he have died as a result of old age? No. Why? Because he possessed an indefinite lifespan.



__________________
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
Søren Kierkegaard

scigirl

That's one way of looking at it I guess. I'm curious - what bible verses are you using to justify this theory?

Since they clearly must have had different physiology (humans cannot live forever today even if they follow all their doctor's recommendations), how can you be so sure? So - they couldn't jump off a cliff. But could they eat nuts forever? Surely their triglyceride levels after 300 or 400 years would have eventually built up enough plaques to clog an artery somewhere. Yet the Bible says they were free from disease. So - they were either way different from humans (so the story is not a good human creation story), OR they weren't free from disease at all.

Or how about obesity, or vitamin toxicity, from overeating? Were they capable of overeating (and their physiology was different in which case they weren't really "true" humans to start with), OR they could not overeat - in which case they did not have free will.

My point of course is not to analyze physiology. It's that Adam and Eve either did NOT have free will, or, they did, but their lives, or their physiology, or both, were fundamentally different from today's modern humans. And thus, their actions cannot be evaluated in terms of free will/knowledge of consequences as ours can. Hence, God was immoral in punishing them the way He did.

Ok I'm trying to explain the literal Adam and Eve story - I feel dirty.

Off to shower (or read an evolution book or something...)

scigirl