ManM

Wyz_sub10,
Everyone. I'm not aware of any Christian denomination that claims only a few will be resurrected.

No, both situations are similar. We cannot necessarily learn from disobedience to our parents until we touch the hot stove? That statement doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, we can learn from defiance in the case of Adam and Eve (and in our own experience as well), and apply this in the next life. I would go so far as to claim this is exactly what is going to happen.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Emphasis mine.

I believe Jesus set the example.

I think this world we live in is a good example of what happens when we do not relate to God and each other in the correct way.

Butters

Not to harp on this, but we should make sure are analogies are correct. If we want to use the hot stove as an example, we would have to sit the child in front of it, point it out to them, and tell them not to touch it. We would also have to leave someone with them that we KNOW will try to tempt them to do it, then we must leave them alone. When the child gets burnt, whose falt is it? Still not a good analogy, because A&E were surrounded by other fruit that was good, and, not knowing the difference between good and evil, could not tell the difference. So they had "free will", but not enough information to make an informed choice, and no moral compass at all.

And yet, A&E, who had to pay the price, were the only ones who COULD NOT make a moral choice!

Yes, the relationship he wants is the same an abusive spouse wants. Love me, obey me, or die (of course the burn in hell forever part is something more)

But surely you mean that all will be resurrected, and most will go to hell, don't you? You must have heard of this, it is the mainstream Christian position.

Wyz_sub10

ManM:

I'm speaking of heavan, specifically (although I did not make that clear). If you include hell, as well, the repercussions are severe. In either case, I do not see how you can claim "the repercussions of our actions are temporary." Maybe death and asickness are, but the decisions we have made seem to have everlasting consequences. This much is claimed by all Christian denominations, AFAIK.

I don't see what is so perplexing about the meaning of my statements.

The stove is hot - it will hurt to touch it. A child will learn that from his parents, if he is told as much. But he/she may not understand the concept of degree or damage. They cannot "learn" this save by experience.

It's *what* we learn that is the issue. What has the child learned if mom and dad say "don't touch because it'll hurt you"? Perhaps that there is danger there. Fine.

But what if mom and dad say, "you are forbidden to touch the stove". What has the child learned then? This is analogous to the Tree of Life - there is nothing more to learn that 'god says 'no''.

Learn what, exactly? What was learned beyond 'god said so'? As for the 'next life', I have no idea what you think the 'next life' will be like and how one would apply anything there. If applying something is a choice, what makes you think people will choose to do that? If it isn't, then what is applied is irrelevant to what I learned here, as it will be applied for me.

So god provides them with a reason not to eat the fruit - because they will die. But they didn't die.

For the most part, it's a fine example. But it didn't do any good for the masses who lived in the supposed 3-4 thousand years before Jesus, did it? Yet, I'm willing to bet that, proportionally speaking, they were just as good, bad, kind, mean, etc. as we are today.

I'll agree with you on the second part, but I tend to think trying to relate to god is what causes many problems in the first place.

Mind you, I'm one of those people who think humanity is, for the most part, "good".

ManM

Butters,
I already addressed these points. Multiple parties share responsibility. Adam and Eve could tell the difference because they were told by God which tree was problematic.

It is analogous to a parent telling a child that they will be burned if they touch the stove instead of obeying. There is no abuse here.

Since Wyz also brought this up, I'll leave the answer for below.

Wyz_sub10,
In the case of the child who touches a hot stove, they will eventually heal. However, the fact that the child touched the stove will never go away. And so touching the stove did have everlasting consequences. Physical pain is just not one of them. I suspect heaven and hell are the same way. There won't be any difference between them from God's point of view. Instead, the difference is based on our subjective experience of the next life.

God said no to the tree of life so that the sickness in Adam and Eve would not become immortal. If a child touched a hot stove, would you allow him to do something which would make the pain permanent? There is no knowledge to be gained by the tree of life. It is just not the right time for us to eat of that particular tree. Also note that in dealing with the tree of good and evil, God said exactly what you recommended: "If you eat of this tree, you will die." Or in your own words, don't touch because it will hurt you.

We are learning through experience what happens when we separate ourselves from God. We ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and so we are learning about good and evil. And like yourself, I generally hold humanity in high regard. Given a fresh new start, I don't think anyone will prefer evil to good.

Adam and Eve are dead.

I'm not so sure the time difference matters that much. I have a feeling his example will be much more influential in the next life. There will be no confusion about what proper relationships entail.

Wyz_sub10

You're using 'consequences' as a synonym for 'experience' or 'history'. If I spill milk on the floor, the fact that it happened will never change - it is part of my history or experience. When we speak of consequences, however, we generally refer to negative effects of magnitude. We seldom speak of the 'consequences' of good work being a promotion, or on the negative, the 'consquences' of spilling milk being a stain rug.

But technically, you are right. So let's re-focus on the point.

We can fine tune the wording, because the initial point remains the same - the kid who touches the hot stove and hurts himself, knows better not to touch the hot stove next time (or maybe it takes him two of three times).

When Adam and Eve ate from the tree, there was no next time available. Whatever they learned about eating from the tree made no difference. There were no more "trees of life", and no way to prevent losing their eternal life "again" (as opposed to prevent being burned again).

You might argue that they learned not to disobey god the next time, but in learning nothing beyond that, their expected future behaviour was classical conditioning, and that's pretty darn robotic.

Well, I can't comment on your opinion of heaven and hell. I remember the various descriptions from the bible and from religion classes. But so long as the consequences are permanent and unchanging, it doesn't matter to the point what heaven and hell are like.

Comments like these are very perplexing. What was the "sickness in man" and how did it get there?

No, but if I was a responsible parent I wouldn't leave him in a room where he could touch a hot stove in the first place. And I would take responsibility if he did (especially if I had the foresight to know that he probably would touch the stove, given the chance).

Isn't it knowledge of good and evil, as stated in your quote?

Adam and Eve don't know why they can't do something (just like opur curious kid does not know). So god expects them to comply based on his order, despite their curiosity. This is, in my opinion, demanding robotic compliance. However, I do see you noted god's rationale below, so I will address it there.

BTW, as an aside, was there ever going to be a right time to eat from that tree?

Leaving aside for the moment the question of why this tree is there at all, I can accept that reasoning. But to return to the knowledge of good and evil, is it reasonable to assume they would have understood this? How would they have understood death (not to mention disobediance if they didn't understand sin).

The concept of death would have be foreign and meaningless. Our young one may not understand the concept of pain to the degree of a severe burn, but he understands pain somewhat. It is *because* he may not understand the concept that we must be vigilant in protecting him.

What good was it to give Adam and Eve this information if they could not understand what it meant? You come to my house and there is a door on the roof. You say, "can I go out that door?" And I say, "well, if you do you will suzzafin." What would that mean to you?

You are intentionally confusing entities. 'We' didn't eat from the tree of life. I didn't eat anything from that tree. I wasn't even there.

In the stove analogy, you are saying the child learns what happens when he disobeys his parents (as opposed to when he touches a hot surface). As a parent, I would want to make this distinction. His burn is not a punishment for disobeying mom and dad. It's not even a consequence of disobeying mom and dad, necesarily. It's a consequence of him touching a hot surface.

I'm glad we agree on the first point. As for a fresh start, I suppose it depends on what evil ahs to offer versus what good has to offer. I tend to think of 'good' and 'evil' as conveniences for our description. In reality, all people are selfish. But some are selfish with a lack of empathy and foresight to the degree that an "evil" person is created. A good person may still be selfish, but has the empathy and foresight that makes evil acts unpalatable, repugnant, or, at the least, less attractive options.

They didn't eat of the tree and die immediately. They supposedly lived for many, many years afterwards. Did they even make the connection? After 300 years, I'd be thinking "phew, we didn't die after all". Plus, you said earlier that god didn't want them to eat of the tree so they would not become immortal. So either way they die.

I can only answer this with a question - will there be a choice in the afterlife to learn from this example, or is "too late" upon death, in your opinion?

ManM

Wyz_sub10,
I've already addressed many of the questions you ask.

The next life is the next time.

We are learning the consequences of evil just as a child learns the consequences of touching the hot stove.

The sickness is improper relations, and it got their through Adam and Eve's choices.

At what point do you let him use the stove? And take note, God did take responsibility. The entire point of Christianity is that God came to help us out.

The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are two different trees.

I would think so.

As I already mentioned before, I think the dialog between Eve and the serpent demonstrates that she understood death.

God did not say, "If you eat from this tree I will kill you." He said, "surely you will die." Death is not a punishment from God. When Adam and Eve separated themselves from the source of life, they fell from life into death. You are correct in identifying that the analogy and genesis diverge at the point of what caused the harm. In the case of Adam and Eve, it is the disobedience itself which causes the harm.

It seems clear that improper relations only offers suffering.

I suspect they made the connection every time they experienced pain. And it seems clear that Adam and Eve were not prone to death before they ate from the tree.

No, it will not be too late to learn from this example. In fact, I fully expect everyone will learn from his example.

Wyz_sub10

ManM,

Sorry for the late reply, but other obligations have called.

Unfortunately I haven't the time to give your reply the attention it deserves, and I'm off for the holidays and computer-less for a week.

Just a comment on the following quote:

Doesn't it strike you as unfair that god, given his supposed intent for Adam and Eve, would create a world perect save for one temptation that the two, who did not know sin, could not avoid? Do you not think god has some obligation in this? Even if I were to concede all your points, I would still be left with the idea that the setup was doomed to failure (and if not literally 'doomed', then at great risk).

I have many troubles with A&E as a literal stroy, as you might guess. But even as a parable or fable I have problems with seeing god as a victom and us as deserving recipients of their decisions.

More to say but no time to say it, unfortunately.

All the best for the holidays.