28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, Adam and Eve did something that they did not know was wrong, all they knew was God asked them not to do it but not knowing right from wrong their understanding of the implications is exceedingly suspect. In return for having done this God cursed them, all the generations to follow them, the ground, and in a real show of divine overreaction he cursed snakes. Apparently when God says "dying, you will die" he means a great deal more than the mere words suggest. Adam and Eve suffered from a lack of information and not suprisingly made a poor decision when faced with pressure from a talking snake.
Beg to differ. This wasn't a moral issue, as it was clear the fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was an obedience issue. Would they trust that God would supply everything they needed in all aspects, or would they trust something other than God?
If 'dying' wasn't perspicuous to them, God may as well have said 'snorkeling,' or any other nonsensical (to them) word.
From my view, ALL parties involved in this story are pretty flawed.
Could this story get any stranger?
TheSkipper
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperImplication for them is excruciatingly clear: you will die. Knowing the absolute ramifications, however, is speculative. Kind of like us, knowing the total ramifications of any one of our failures isn't our primary objective. The primary objective is to do the right thing.
So, Adam and Eve did something that they did not know was wrong, all they knew was God asked them not to do it but not knowing right from wrong their understanding of the implications is exceedingly suspect. In return for having done this God cursed them, all the generations to follow them, the ground, and in a real show of divine overreaction he cursed ...[text shortened]... involved in this story are pretty flawed.
Could this story get any stranger?
TheSkipper
While Adam and the woman did not know good and evil, they were told not to eat, or they would die. Unless you are prepared to argue that 'dying' held no meaning to them, the issue seems moot.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWere they not also told that eating of the fruit would NOT make them die? They had no way of knowing that the snake was evil, even if they did it woudn't matter as they did not understand evil. Adam and Eve's primary objective was most certainly not to do the right thing since "the right thing" would have no meaning to them.
Implication for them is excruciatingly clear: you will die. Knowing the absolute ramifications, however, is speculative. Kind of like us, knowing the total ramifications of any one of our failures isn't our primary objective. The primary objective is to do the right thing.
While Adam and the woman did not know good and evil, they were told not to eat ...[text shortened]... Unless you are prepared to argue that 'dying' held no meaning to them, the issue seems moot.
Further, I can see making many decisions that would result in my death but I would never make a decision that would result in cursing everyone from now until eternity, the ground and snakes. They, however, did not have this information.
So, they had conflicting information, they were not made aware of all the implications of their actions and they were not given the abilty to determine right from wrong. It sounds like being given an essay exam without any means to write on the paper.
TheSkipper
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheSkipper"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
Were they not also told that eating of the fruit would NOT make them die? They had no way of knowing that the snake was evil, even if they did it woudn't matter as they did not understand evil. Adam and Eve's primary objective was most certainly not to do the right thing since "the right thing" would have no meaning to them.
Further, I can see making ...[text shortened]... sounds like being given an essay exam without any means to write on the paper.
TheSkipper
And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
Here's the NIV of it. The man was given carte blanche for all trees, and the only restriction was the fruit of one tree. Free to eat all, with the exception of one. Not even getting into the original language, they knew what the stakes were (at least on the immediate level).
The serpent approached the woman solo, when she was away from the man. He purposely did not approach the man directly, but rather, indirectly, through the woman, and utilizing flattery, at that.
I said our primary objective is to do the right thing, as it relates to our level of spiritual maturity. Their right thing was to live! Our failures lead to all kinds of reprecussions, most of which we are oblivious to. Want a mindbender? How do I lessen the judgment which Christ received?
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by dottewellWithout God, how would one define 'good' or 'bad'? Everything would simply be my opinion or yours. How would any group of people define right from wrong?
Do Christians (and others of faith) believe that without God there would be no moral truths? And that if god did not exist, then goodness and badness would not exist?
And I don't believe collective agreement is a possibility. It might work for where your office mates are going to go to lunch, but without laws, how is one suppose to stop the big guy from just doing what he wants?
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendIf God doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that morality is mere opinion. If God exists, it doesn't follow that His existence has anything to do with morality. If you think otherwise, then present your argument. What's your first premise?
Without God, how would one define 'good' or 'bad'? Everything would simply be my opinion or yours. How would any group of people define right from wrong?
And I don't believe collective agreement is a possibility. It might work for where your office mates are going to go to lunch, but without laws, how is one suppose to stop the big guy from just doing what he wants?
DF
(1)....?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrGod, not a being who is morally perfect, but beyond measure...
If God doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that morality is mere opinion. If God exists, it doesn't follow that His existence has anything to do with morality. If you think otherwise, then present your argument. What's your first premise?
(1)....?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrHonestly, bbarr, I just can't imagine a world without God, therefore, the question of morality without God is moot. As I posted earlier, a morality sans God would look essentially like survival of the fittest.
Hey, I just want to understand why you folk think that morality without God is nothing but mere opinion. You're so adamant about it I figure that you must have some pretty good arguments. So, let's have 'em...
(2)....?
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh, so THAT'S your moral standpoint to judge all us athiests as immoral, or at least amoral, is it? You can't imagine not believing in god, and since you deem yourself to be moral, all us athiests must be amoral. Excellent.
Honestly, bbarr, I just can't imagine a world without God, therefore, the question of morality without God is moot. As I posted earlier, a morality sans God would look essentially like survival of the fittest.
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by bbarrPremise 1: before a group of people can live together peacefully there needs to be an agreed upon set of rules governing their actions
If God doesn't exist, it doesn't follow that morality is mere opinion. If God exists, it doesn't follow that His existence has anything to do with morality. If you think otherwise, then present your argument. What's your first premise?
(1)....?
If there isn't , or if the rules are suddenly lifted, we get what we saw in New Orleans after Katrina. It quickly becomes might-makes-right.
Premise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they must agree the rules come from an authoritative source.
If not, the "rules" simply opinions and they carry no more weight than any individual's opinion.
Premise 3: Since mankind is currently civilized, it must have agreed at some point that the rules it lives by were given to it by someone with authority.
If all men's opinions are equal, the rules we now live by must have come from something with authority over all men. Since man the smartest creature on the planet, the rules couldn't have come from him nor anything beneath him (like the animals). Thus they came from someone above him. And that someone is God.
DF
01 Mar 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendPremise 2: in order for a group of people to accept a set of rules, they must agree the rules come from an authoritative source.
Premise 1: before a group of people can live together peacefully there needs to be an agreed upon set of rules ...
DF
Why must people accept that rules have come from an authoritative source?
I've got no idea where the rules of chess have come from, they might well be the Pope, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or some Persian King. That doesn't matter. Wat matters is that I agree to follow them. If I don't, well I guess I could play Kriegspiel, or Checkers, or something else ...
The authority that we site for our social rules is usually the law. But the law is an agreed upon set of rules created by ... us. That is, we've created the rules by which we live.
(Well not me of course, or you, but our forbears.)
Premise 3: Since mankind is currently civilized, it must have agreed at some point that the rules it lives by were given to it by someone with authority.
Not quite sure where the logic is in this premise.
Let me see ....
No, wait ....
Is it ....
No, sorry. No logic there at all.