Moral Progress

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Shoot, robbie, you and your Jehovah's Witnesses always throw a wrench into my plans! OK, JWs do not have this conceptual problem. Thanks for pointing it out.

What exactly did Knowledge of Good and Evil do for or to Adam? The Tree of Life gives immortality right?

Lol, Drat drat and double drat! as Dick Dastardly was want to say! Its ok my friend many times we have hatched a conceptual plan only for someone to dash it to pieces, and again we go back to the 'old drawing board', a la Wiley E Cayote.

I dont think Adam gained anything from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, although i could be wrong, Galvo might know, he is more experienced than I, and a nicer person as well. Anyhow, i think it was just representative of Gods right to set limits as SwissGambit alluded to in his rather fine illustration.

The tree of life, mmmmm. I think we also hold that it was symbolic, its fruit having no intrinsic value to impart everlasting life (different from immortality), but representative of Gods guarantee of everlasting life.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes children shall, and Adam had freedom of choice test the boundaries of his experience. Touch a hot stove and he may live, play on a motorway (freeway i think you guys call it) and he may not. How far are you as a responsible parent willing to let your child 'test the boundaries'?

If Adam was without sin, he would have been perfect in every se ...[text shortened]... se no record of Adam ever having repented underlining his wilful course of moral independence.

That's exactly the point! Eating of the tree was an act that ruined a whole species. It *IS* analogous to "playing on the motorway". Indeed, it begs the question: Why did God let this boundary be tested??!

Where are you getting the idea that sin makes you defective intellectually? That's a new theory to me, I must say.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's exactly the point! Eating of the tree was an act that ruined a whole species. It *IS* analogous to "playing on the motorway". Indeed, it begs the question: Why did God let this boundary be tested??!

Where are you getting the idea that sin makes you defective intellectually? That's a new theory to me, I must say.

God had to let it be tested otherwise it could be levelled against him that he was a tyrannical autocrat, that he was withholding something beneficial from humanity.

secondly it stands to reason that any deviation from perfection results in a loss, whether intellectually, morally or physically.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God had to let it be tested otherwise it could be levelled against him that he was a tyrannical autocrat, that he was withholding something beneficial from humanity.

secondly it stands to reason that any deviation from perfection results in a loss, whether intellectually, morally or physically.

Wow. All the sinning I've been doing lately must be clouding my ability to reason, because none of this is making any sense to me. 😞

Leveled again him by whom...? [And does it matter, since the charge would be bogus?]
Beneficial?! Look at the results of the decision - does it seem beneficial to you?

I thought sin was a moral failing of some kind, or failure to obey God. I don't see how that should have any effect on the intellect whatsoever. Did Satan become stupider when he defied God?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Wow. All the sinning I've been doing lately must be clouding my ability to reason, because none of this is making any sense to me. 😞

Leveled again him by whom...? [And does it matter, since the charge would be bogus?]
Beneficial?! Look at the results of the decision - does it seem beneficial to you?

I thought sin was a moral failing of som ...[text shortened]... uld have any effect on the intellect whatsoever. Did Satan become stupider when he defied God?

levelled against him by the perpetrators of course, silly. They held that God, in withholding moral independence was depriving his intelligent creatures, thus for God to settle the issue, what was he to do? Zap them instantly and start again? nope for that would not have settled the issue. Thus he allowed them to reject his protection , guidance and loving sovereignty and depart on a course of moral independence. It mattered not the the charge was bogus or not, for it was made, in front of Angelic hordes, who also are endowed with free will and who were looking on. How could the issue be settled? simply by allowing time for the perpetrators to prove their point during the course of which evidence could be gathered.

sin is a moral failing, but its effects were imprinted upon their organism, right to its genetic foundations, that is why the apostle states that sin causes death, and when sin is no more, neither shall death be.

One may argue that Satan made an unwise decision when he chose to disobey God, for wisdom is the application of knowledge and being a created entity his knowledge is limited in comparison. If you are in a perfect physical state, with absolutely no defects, think of the possibilities, at present we use as little as 2 percent of our minds potential, some estimates even less during our very brief life, imagine the potential if our bodies were perfect and replenishing themselves perpetually. You could play the sax, master languages, compose chess puzzles, learn so many different skills, but look, we get seventy or eighty years and we learn maybe two three or four things well, its a rip off!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
God being the source of all goodness and righteousness, cannot deviate from his own standards, for that would be hypocrisy, thus, Adam, for wilfully sinning, in full consciousness of the fact, brought ostracism upon himself and his subsequent offspring. Eve on the other hand while being deceived, induced him to be an accomplice in their rebellion and was also punished.

I am still not clear as to whether Adam was aware of the consequences or not. At one point you seem to be saying he was, the next minute it is not so clear. I also don't see where Eve comes into it if Adam fully understood what he was doing. Was Eve deceived but not Adam? Was Eve less guilty?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am still not clear as to whether Adam was aware of the consequences or not. At one point you seem to be saying he was, the next minute it is not so clear. I also don't see where Eve comes into it if Adam fully understood what he was doing. Was Eve deceived but not Adam? Was Eve less guilty?

(1 Timothy 2:14) . . .Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression. . .


Adam disobeyed in full consciousness, why you should be confused i do not know? Eve was deceived but she induced her husband to take a rebellious course and thus came to be in transgression.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Adam disobeyed in full consciousness, why you should be confused i do not know?

What is not clear is whether he was aware of the consequences of his choice. "Adam disobeyed in full consciousness" does not answer it for me.

Secondly you say Eve "induced her husband to take a rebellious course". What does that mean? What it Adams choice, or was he persuaded by Eve? Still not clear.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is not clear is whether he was aware of the consequences of his choice. "Adam disobeyed in full consciousness" does not answer it for me.

Secondly you say Eve "induced her husband to take a rebellious course". What does that mean? What it Adams choice, or was he persuaded by Eve? Still not clear.

ok, Adam was not seduced, he knew the prohibition and he wilfully chose to disobey it by listening to and siding with his wife in her transgression.. Eve also knew of the prohibition but she was tricked into her course of moral independence, afterwards she induced her husband to also reach out for moral independence and persuaded him to overstep the commandment. Yes it was Adams choice, regardless of whether he was persuaded or not, he chose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What is not clear is whether he was aware of the consequences of his choice. "Adam disobeyed in full consciousness" does not answer it for me.

Secondly you say Eve "induced her husband to take a rebellious course". What does that mean? What it Adams choice, or was he persuaded by Eve? Still not clear.

We've had this discussion previously and at length, and it appears to be one of those topics that you're never going to find satisfaction. The biblical account is achingly clear in all aspects of the situation, even without the benefit of supporting passages typically used to clarify those 'murkier' doctrines.

Which is not to say that there exists no further light on the topic: as rc pointed out herein, there are other passages which illuminate and amplify this already-clear portion of Scripture.

Adam and the woman were faced with but a few choices while in the Garden... only one of which held a weighted value. Morals were not an issue, nor was either good or evil in any capacity. If they wanted to continue in life, they could eat the fruit of any tree in the Garden, exception already noted. If they were willing to die spiritual and eventually physically, taste of the exception.

You continue to revisit whether or not Adam and the woman could have known truly the implication(s) of their action, but the account is clear. The straightforward rendering of the events as well as basic common sense tell us they both wanted to live--- at least, for an unspecified amount of time. After all, they continued to eat of all the approved trees, right? They continued walking with God in the cool of the evening, communing with Him. They continued enjoying the life He had prepared for them.

Eventually, the woman ceased paying attention and the inevitable happened: she became bored. Her separation from her husband intensified her vulnerability to deception. Once committed, her misery demanded bringing the only other person possible into the fray. Adam's conscious decision was not exteriorly derived: he convinced himself he'd rather have the woman than stay with God.

Your contention that they could not have possibly known the entire ramifications of their action somehow mitigates their culpability simply creates an unnecessary obstacle to clarity--- for the purpose of abating our own responsibility, were such a thing possible. But it did not and it is not.

Self-preservation is a mighty, mighty force. Consider its impact in your own life as you continue to wrestle with this one area (spirituality) that your intellect perceives as a threat to your otherwise firm grasp of life's issues. Certainly the two in the Garden were every bit as concerned with their self-preservation as any of us today. We know they perpetuated their existence for an extended period of time by eating, sleeping and any other requirement life demanded. Therefore, we can assume they wanted to live.

Without the experience of death, you argue, they had no scale. Well, neither do you. You have no idea what happens after life even though you have seen people or animals die... and this helps inform your fight for life, despite the lack of knowledge. Surely, for Adam and the woman, this could not have been all that different.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, Adam was not seduced, he knew the prohibition and he wilfully chose to disobey it by listening to and siding with his wife in her transgression.. Eve also knew of the prohibition but she was tricked into her course of moral independence, afterwards she induced her husband to also reach out for moral independence and persuaded him to overstep the commandment. Yes it was Adams choice, regardless of whether he was persuaded or not, he chose.

Why is it so hard for you to clarify one simple thing for me? I am fairly sure that I have asked you three times now and you seem to be avoiding it.

Was Adam aware of the consequences of his actions?

In case that is still not clear, was Adam aware that he would cause untold suffering to virtually all his descendants?

And now a new question. What did he think he would gain by his decision? Did he gain it? ie was he deceived and if so by whom?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why is it so hard for you to clarify one simple thing for me? I am fairly sure that I have asked you three times now and you seem to be avoiding it.

Was Adam aware of the consequences of his actions?

In case that is still not clear, was Adam aware that he would cause untold suffering to virtually all his descendants?

And now a new question. What ...[text shortened]... id he think he would gain by his decision? Did he gain it? ie was he deceived and if so by whom?

Was Adam aware of the consequences of his actions? YES! YES! YES! hopefully this is now clear!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
levelled against him by the perpetrators of course, silly. They held that God, in withholding moral independence was depriving his intelligent creatures, thus for God to settle the issue, what was he to do? Zap them instantly and start again? nope for that would not have settled the issue. Thus he allowed them to reject his protection , guidance ...[text shortened]... we get seventy or eighty years and we learn maybe two three or four things well, its a rip off!

How can a being that is not morally independent criticize God?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How can a being that is not morally independent criticize God?

How can you argue with perfection?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How can you argue with perfection?

Nothing is perfect, not even God. If God were perfect, he would not have allowed the Tree of Knowledge to be in the Garden. If God were perfect, he would not have become flustered enough with humans to kill all but Noah's family. If God was perfect, then sending Jesus to save humanity would not have been necessary. Perfection does not make mistakes. It is clear from the Bible that God makes mistakes. To profess otherwise is to turn a conveniently blind set of eyes to fact and the Word of God.