Spirituality
28 Jun 05
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10I thought Adam and Eve did? The Apple gave the 'knowledge' and before that they were innocent...
There is a huge difference here. God told them NOT to partake of the tree of fruit of knowledge of good and evil, and yet they did. Adam and Eve presumably were adults, and adults do not have "childlike innocence".
RX
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayHow so? After all it is an Almighty God talking to the only two humans who ever existed supposedly. Taking it in context, it seems pretty clear that God is telling A and E in Genesis that he'll kill them since he is the one who created them and the only one with such a power (they can't even do it themselves).
Or that it was told to an adult who was told they die, which is what
we each see when we come across a sign that says poison do not
eat. Which is different that saying, do this I’ll kill you.
Kelly
Alpha10: A and E were not truly adults as they didn't know the difference between Right and Wrong. In law, an adult who cannot not the difference between right and wrong cannot be punished for his acts. I would say an adult without a sense of right and wrong is roughly akin to a three year old (perhaps even a younger child).
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIn todays law, maybe. But did todays law exist back then? Young children were punished the same as adults in that time, were they not? Well, not in Adam and Eve's time, but ancient times.
How so? After all it is an Almighty God talking to the only two humans who ever existed supposedly. Taking it in context, it seems pretty clear that God is telling A and E in Genesis that he'll kill them since he is the one who created them and the only one with such a power (they can't even do it themselves).
Alpha10: A and E were ...[text shortened]... t a sense of right and wrong is roughly akin to a three year old (perhaps even a younger child).
28 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperThose nice tasty cookies meant for a party should be replaced by poison that would REALLY kill the children.
Decent definition of a strawman, I suppose, but what I think Phla was asking is WHY you think No1's argument is a strawman. What exactly is different in No1's story vs the Genesis story that causes you concern? I can point out a coup ...[text shortened]... like to hear your own ideas, if you are so inclined.
TheSkipper
Now please, read the Strawman again.
EDIT: The strawman has now become less of a strawman, but it still is a manipulating and lying strawman.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by Alpha10I doubt if children were punished the same as adults in ancient times, but that's somewhat besides the point. The point is we don't punish them because we recognize that someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong cannot comport their behavior to standards of right and wrong they don't understand. Therefore, the punishment of Adam and Eve is unjust.
In todays law, maybe. But did todays law exist back then? Young children were punished the same as adults in that time, were they not? Well, not in Adam and Eve's time, but ancient times.
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNo, because eating of the tree didn't kill Adam and Eve so your analogy would be a poor one, while the Modern Parable is an apt one.
Those nice tasty cookies meant for a party should be replaced by poison that would REALLY kill the children.
Now please, read the Strawman again.
28 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhile I believe No1's parable to be interesting and very clever I have one problem with it which I will atempt to outline here.
Came across this and thought it was pretty interesting:
A woman bakes a batch of cookies for a party. She warns her twins, aged 3, to not eat any. She explained to them, deceitfully, that If they did, then she would kill t ...[text shortened]... gioustolerance.org/sin_gene1.htm
Thoughts? Comments?
Say God were to put the fruit 'out of reach' as the mother should have with the cookies. Where then is the free will we are supposed to have? How can we CHOOSE to be naughty if we are logistically FORBIDDEN to be naughty?
I agree, in general, that the tree was a pretty lame thing for God to do to Adam and Eve but I'm not sure what else could have been done if we were to have free will. It seems to me that in order to have free will we must also be given the ability to do something God would prefer we not do. yes?
TheSkipper
28 Jun 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1: "EDIT: I wonder if Ivanhoe would have been running around behind Jesus yelling, "Strawman!" every time he made an "argument by analogy" i.e. told a parable.[/b]
I don't think a parable or analogy CAN be a strawman fallacy. A strawman fallacy is replacing someone's argument with a distorted or exaggerated one i.e. (2 examples):
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went ...[text shortened]... Jesus yelling, "Strawman!" every time he made an "argument by analogy" i.e. told a parable.
Name one, genius.