ManM

Wyz_sub10,
I'm not sure I have a problem with this. God desires for us to relate to Him and each other in a particular manner. One of the requirements of this relationship is apparently freedom. I find nothing wrong with saying that God does not want robots (agents without free will), but desires for us to act in a particular manner.

hinduwoman

did Adam and Eve knew what 'death' meant before they ate the apple? If they did not then why blame them for eating it?

Jamie_L

Well, to be honest, I'm still muddling through my position on what free will is, or even if it exists. In some respects, in this thread, I'm confusing "free will" and "responsibility." In the example of the girl, one could say the girl made a free choice but was not responsible. Likewise with Adam and Eve. So, you're right, I am fuzzying up the terms.

Wyz' points get back to another thread I started, however: If God was only concerned with obedience, why give Adam and Eve free will? If God was concerned with more than obedience, why give Adam and Eve insufficient evidence to make a responsible free choice?

Jamie

metalikat3003

In a sense there are only 2 decisions that one makes in life:

1.) to do
2.) not to do

It is in these 2 thoughts that I think make up the concept of free will or even obedience. Blind obedience is not having a thought within the decsion process of choosing to obey, while Free will allows time for thought before action. So in a sense it may come down to deciding for yourself or allowing others to decide for you. And in a third aspect I am completely wrong.

Peace

ManM

hinduwoman,
I think the dialog between Eve and the serpent demonstrates that she understood death.

Jamie_L,
Let's revisit your example.

I would add one thing. Let's say that the father warns his girl beforehand that sex would lead to physical pain.

I would disagree. I would contend that the responsibility is shared over many fronts. The father would be responsible for not protecting his daughter. The 30 year old would be responsible for deceiving the little girl. The girl would be responsible for not heeding her father's warning. Yes, the girl is not fully responsible. However, this does not mean that the girl is free from responsibility. Finger pointing aside, the fact of the matter is that she now has to face the physical pain that corresponds with a girl having sex before reaching maturity.

God was responsible for not zapping the serpent with a lightning bolt. The serpent was responsible for deceiving Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were responsible for not heeding God's warning. But the bottom line is that Adam and Eve separated themselves from the source of life (God). In doing so, they found themselves subject to death.

I'm not sure, but I think I addressed this in that other topic of yours. I would not say God is only concerned with obedience. Perhaps He is concerned with both the relationship and the nature of the being with whom He shares the relationship.

What would you consider to have been sufficient evidence?

Wyz_sub10

I wouldn't have a problem with that logic either, except that it is more than desire. Failure to comlpy is such that the demands are coercive.

I do not believe in karma, but that concept seems a little more logical in terms of intent - keep doing it until you get it right. In Christianity, it seems like a one-shot deal in which you must behave as god demands. This is what seems robotic.

ManM

Wyz_sub10,
A parent demands that their child not touch a hot stove. The child must behave as the parent demands or else the child will be burned by the stove. This is a one-shot deal where the child must behave as the parent demands or else he will be suffering pain. Does this situation seem robotic to you?

Wyz_sub10

Two issues:

There is a major difference in the outcome of compliance (or non-compliance). A parent, of course, doesn't want their child to be burned or hurt. If the child does defy the parents, the child will heave learned something (the hard way) and will know better for the next time - and there *will* be a next time, it is not really a one-shot deal. The parents will not punish that kid forever (if at all). So while obedience is demanded, there is an expectation of possible defiance - which is why parents take physical precautions to try and prevent this possibility in addition to verbal commands.

Second, the child is expected to grow to a level of understanding, where they know why they are supposed to avoid such a thing. When they reach a level beyond that, they will make their own choices on what to touch or not to touch. The parents will still have their wishes, but these will cease to be demands.

So, yes, there is a measure of 'robotic behaviour' expected (i.e. simple compliance), but 1) the repercussions of non-compliance are temporary, 2) the expectation of compliance is temporary, 3) there is an expectation of possible defiance, usually accompanied by safeguards, and 4) defiance of demands produces a knowledge which may support future compliance.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Wyz_sub10 ]</p>

ManM

Wyz_sub10,
1) Christianity teaches that there will be a general resurrection. In the grand scheme of things, the repercussions of our actions (sickness and death) are temporary.

2) I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. A parent expects their child to not touch the hot stove. I don't see how this expectation ever goes away. They may not have to communicate this expectation after the child learns about hot stoves the hard way, however, they will still have the expectation.

3) Now that we know what happens when we do not relate to God and to each other in the correct way, do you think He will have to reiterate the commandments in the next life?

Wyz_sub10

ManM:

For everyone, for Christians, or for "true" Christians?

I suppose the *expectation* never goes away, in so far as I am an adult living 8 hours away from my parents, and I'm sure they still *expect* me not to touch a hot stove.

But there is no more demand on their part that I do not, and they no longer longer have any reponsibility for me doing so. They don't tell me not to touch the hot stove and probably aren't too concerned about it if I do (other than to feel bad for me if I really hurt myself).

I agree. But I am using this particular outcome to differentiate between defiance with recognizable value and defiance with no recognizable value. We can learn from defiance in the stove case, and apply this use afterward. We cannot necessarily learn from disobedience to god until it is too late (re: Adam and Eve).

My issue is that Adam and Eve were not told what would happen the first time if the disobeyed, yet humanity paid for it for many more years.

But with regard to your question, I'm not sure, even when I was a good RC, what the "correct way" was to relate to god and others. There are many conflicting and vague messages about this, and (going back to the OP) my free will endorses a curiosity that is not satisfied by many explanations given in the bible.

Additionally, I'm not sure I know what happens if we do not relate to god and each other in the correct way. Eternal torment? Banishment from god? Loneliness? Nothing?