24 Jul 05
Originally posted by kingdanwanot so, by your contention he deliberately created evil. in fact any reading of that story other than a metaphor for something else make god out to be the willful creator of evil.
Again, God created the possibility of evil. In fact, this demonstrates his goodness because it permits love.
Adam was with Eve, so it's not like she had to run and find him. And, as a matter of fact, they did die as a result of their sin.
I do think freewill is the cause of "evil" , but it's also the cause of "good" but that's something that has nothing to do with God.
24 Jul 05
6 edits
Originally posted by kingdanwaLet us distinguish between, for lack of a better term, passive and active temptations.
But, perhaps the presence of a possible temptation would not necessarily destroy the idea of paradise. For example, I have the option of smoking crack and raping a baby today.
In the Garden, the forbidden tree was a passive temptation, in that it was there, ripe for the commission of evil, but it didn't itself motivate Man to partake. Only Man's innate evil, if any, would compel him to go against God and eat it, in the absence of a temptor.
The serpent was an active temptation, pestering Man with evil as he was going about his good business.
In your analogy, the crack dealers setting up shop on the corner are the passive temptation. Only your innate desire for it would cause you to go buy a hit. The crack dealers following you to work every morning with a sales pitch would be an active temptation.
I think that the first sort doesn't necessarily ruin a paradise. I think the latter does. Suppose Adam and Eve withstood the initial tempation, and everyday after, the serpent at some point during the day would harrass them, persuading them to eat the fruit. Doesn't it stand to reason that when Adam and Eve awoke each morning, they would feel a black cloud ahead of them, annoyance during the daily temptation, and relief when it had passed? Wouldn't Eden be even better without this daily gloom, and thus doesn't the very presence of the temptor make it a non-paradise?
If you answer No, would you say that we can expect to encounter temptation in heaven? If not, then mustn't pre-fall Eden have been at least that one step degraded from the perfection with which it is often portrayed?
Dr. S
P.S. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion so far. It's a welcome change from the typical drivel of this forum.
24 Jul 05
4 edits
Originally posted by David CI find pedantic debate engaging and have not observed any claptrap here.
What sets this pedantic claptrap above the usual nonsense?
The typical Spirituality forum theist is characterized by blatant doublespeak and equivocation, disregard for even rudimentary principles of logic, an understanding of his faith that doesn't intellectually surpass a child's regurgitated Sunday School Bible lesson, a disdain or reluctance for furthering that understanding through intellectually honest introspection and contemplation, a lack of humility for any lingering incomplete understanding, a lack of comfort with having his views poked and prodded with the rationality stick, a lack of appreciation for precision in thought and writing, and frequent proclamations that others will burn in the lake of fire.
The typical Spirituality forum atheist is just as guilty.
Our new forum member and a handful of other veterans (Where are you huntingbear? Rev. K., Nemesio, come back, we might be in the midst of a Spiritual revival.) distinguish themselves via the absence of these characteristics and I respect them for it.
Dr. S
24 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI can appreciate your willingness to debate bible stories with theists ad verbum. Unfortuantely, that might lend credulity to their fables. Until your typical jesusbot has the veil lifted from their eyes, and comes to understand the allegorical/metaphorical nature of the stories such as A&E, they will have no meaningful spiritual growth.
I find pedantic debate engaging and have not observed any claptrap here.
The typical Spirituality forum theist is characterized by blatant doublespeak and equivocation, disregard for even rudimentary principles of logic, an under ...[text shortened]... sence of these characteristics and I respect them for it.
Dr. S
Additionally, their cloying sanctimony is almost too much to bear.
24 Jul 05
Originally posted by frogstompWhy does a non-metaphorical reading make God the cause of evil? For the most part, we have been examining the account of Genesis 3. This (along with the rest of the Bible) never says that God created evil.
not so, by your contention he deliberately created evil. in fact any reading of that story other than a metaphor for something else make god out to be the willful creator of evil.
I do think freewill is the cause of "evil" , but it's also the cause of "good" but that's something that has nothing to do with God.
24 Jul 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think about the book of James where we are told to submit to God,
I believe that Lewis doesn't agree that given enough successes at avoiding temptation, the Devil will cease his tempting. This is evidenced by one scene in the novel which takes place between the Temptor and Ransom the protagonist.
The Temptor pesters Ransom by repeatedly calling his name, "Ransom...Ransom...Ransom..." Whenever Ransom answers ...[text shortened]... ot make it go away. Ransom eventually must kill the Temptor in order to make it cease.
Dr. S
resist the devil and he will flee. I do believe there is a point where
God draws the line. I do love Lewis' work but never read those, I'll
have to look for them.
Kelly
24 Jul 05
[M]ustn't pre-fall Eden have been at least that one step degraded from the perfection with which it is often portrayed?The idea of active and passive temptation does messy things up a bit, but I'm not sure it demonstrates anything too relevant.
As a child in New York, I was intrigued by the street peddlers offering gold jewelry. But now, neither the jewelry itself nor the bum arresting my attention really bother me much at all. I'm able to brush past him as if he were another tree or stray animal. Now, as far as showing compassion, I am at fault. But in terms of his temptation and harassment of me, I could care less. I go about my business regardless of how many street dwellers offer me goods.
Also, as quoted above, perhaps we ought to adjust our view of Eden. Genesis 2:18 says, "The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone." This is a pre-fall world that could be improved on. Man is not sinful yet, but it is clearly not the best conceivable world, as even God admits.
Because of the nature of these online public squares, let us pause a moment and get our bearings. Some of our guests are quick to point out that the Bible is a metaphor. Others blame God for evil, and there still remain questions about the nature and extent of temptations. Do we have a specific direction in our discussion? I feel that I’ve demonstrated that a good and powerful God does not contradict the evil we find in the world.
Is there a potential “heart” of the matter that we could be working towards resolving?
24 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by kingdanwaYou have much to learn about the nature of the Spirituality forum.
Do we have a specific direction in our discussion?
Is there a potential “heart” of the matter that we could be working towards resolving?
Nothing gets resolved. All roads ultimately lead to vitriolic ad hominem arguments. Just enjoy the ride.
I primarily wanted to see if anybody had thought about answers to Lewis's questions, which we have addressed. So with that out of the way, this thread is now free to proceed with the formalities of forum warfare.
I feel that I’ve demonstrated that a good and powerful God does not contradict the evil we find in the world.
I will look for a previous thread from bbarr, our resident philosophical giant, regarding the General Argument from Evil that attempts to refute your demonstration. Perhaps we can resurrect that discussion.
25 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you suppose God had equipped Adam and Eve with this advice?
I think about the book of James where we are told to submit to God,
resist the devil and he will flee.
Do you suppose Eve had been sufficiently prepared for her encounter with the serpent? If so, doesn't that entail that Man was familiar with evil prior to the fall, contrary to the common notion that but for Eve's sin, Man wouldn't have to worry about evil? Or if not, was the punishment God handed down a just one, given that Man had not yet been prepared to face an evil temptor?
25 Jul 05
Originally posted by kingdanwathis needs no comment from me
Why does a non-metaphorical reading make God the cause of evil? For the most part, we have been examining the account of Genesis 3. This (along with the rest of the Bible) never says that God created evil.
Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17 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.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
25 Jul 05
2:17 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."The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflection." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer from Ethics
The fall, in Bonfoefer's view is not simply a matter of testing, but is entirely concerned with what sin is, the desire on our part to be the judge and arbiter of what is good and evil. Setting ourselves apart from and above God. When this occurs we make for ourselves a world void of fellowship with God, and therefore a "fallen" world.
We may hardly agree on this because, as is stated above, the whole of our discussion will always go back to our definition and "judging" of good and evil itself.
25 Jul 05
Originally posted by poopsiecuiGen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
"The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflection." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer from Ethics
The fall, in Bonfoefer's view is not simply a matter of testing, but is entirely concerned with what sin is, the desire on our part to be the judge and arbiter of what is good and evil. Setting ourselves apart from and above God. When t ...[text shortened]... of our discussion will always go back to our definition and "judging" of good and evil itself.
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 2:17 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.
now how was poor Eve to know it was the serpent that wasnt telling the truth?
And Adam certainly had reason to think the serpent was being truthful since he knew Eve wasnt dead yet.
26 Jul 05
Originally posted by kingdanwaIt would seem that God, then, erred in the end in any event. That is,
...This is a pre-fall world that could be improved on. Man is not sinful yet, but it is clearly not the best conceivable world, as even God admits.
if His goal was to create the best possible world and, given what most
theists consider to be His omnipotence, He failed miserably, because
humankind was unable to resist temptation for His single
commandment (don't eat the fruit). That there was another one of
His creations (or so we suppose) trying to cause evil is further
testement to His lack of vision (assuming, of course, we accept a literal
interpretation of the Genesis story).
If God had created a perfect creation, it never would have fallen.
Consider the way in which Jesus was viewed: He underwent all manner
of very active temptation by the Devil itself, but never so much as
waffled. A perfect being will respond to temptation in the perfect way.
Clearly, humankind was not perfect and thus sucumbed to temptation.
So, either we must (like Coletti) submit that this was all part of God's
plan -- that is, the Fall was a necessary condition for the advancement
of His perfect creation -- or that God did not have sufficient vision to
recognize that putting a dangerous tree in a garden with His new
creation was going to cause problems.
Frogstomp seems to scoff at this latter idea (who would put something
dangerous in with a beloved creation?), and rightly so. Which is why, I
suppose, that people like Coletti comfort themselves with the idea that
all of the suffering in the world must be all part of God's great plan to
make us appreciate how good He is (which runs into the various
problems articulated by Bbarr, such as 'Callousness of God' and the
like). It would be a perverse God indeed who intentionally made an
imperfect creation which He knew would err and stumble and fall, just
so He could say 'See, I love you!'
As for needing the Fall in order to love God, I don't find it a compelling
argument. When you raise children, you tell them what to do and
what not to do in order to keep them safe. Do they love you more
when they ignore the rule and suffer the consequences? Did you love
them more? Would you lock your child up in a room with a box and
instruct them not to open it and punish them and their children and
their children's children if they open it? Would such an action be one
of teaching your child that you love them more than they could have
understood without the 'box lesson?'
Nemesio