Adam and Eve

[Aurelian]

Personally, I think the whole subject is a little sketchy.

Humankind was banished from a magical garden because a talking snake convinced a rib-woman to eat a magic fruit.

But, if I were to add my two cents, I'd say that the origin of sin is the moral of this story. God gave humanity free will, humanity chose to disregard some of the rules that God laid down, God punishes humanity for said sin.

...yet, isn't forgiveness one of the central components of the Christian belief?

[Juno]

More appropriate would be a teacher so great, he manages to teach all of his students all the information thus making them ready for what ever there can be on the test. Even the bad apples would be ready.
I know it's not realistic, but just imagine he's a... magical teacher.

Now, the students still have a choice, or should I say just as much as they had before, they are just educated enough to not have to make the wrong choice.

If it was possible, I'd say the world should be this way, would you?

The teacher is so great all the students show up rested, well-nourished and having studied as well? I think you want me to assume that, so I shall.

So you're posing that the student simply has to decide whether to write the answer they know is right or to write some other answer? I would argue that's how it is. They were clearly told not to eat the fruit, but they chose to eat it anyway.

Let me know if i'm misunderstanding you >_<

An educated person still has a choice to make mistakes which go against her education. She still has the choice of jumping into oncoming traffic, but most likely will not.

If just the same, someone is consciously created to be too logically deprived, forgetful or too emotional to follow the owner's commandment, is there any more of a choice?

If they are created in such a way where they will always choose one thing over the other, 100% of the time, 0 exceptions, then it can't be said they are given a choice. I do not think that's the case here though.

The only difference between everyone being created to succeed, or everyone being created differently is, that god has chizelled everyone's individual destiny separately. It may appear more of a choice, but god is just as responsible for puppeteering you by creating you fallible as for making you perfect.

I'm stepping a bit here, but I think it important to remember that omni-potence sin't the same as omni-influence. If God creates you fallible knowing that you will make the wrong choice, it's not the same as if he pre-dispositioned you to make that choice. Well, it can be argued that he has technically done so, but we must also note that he created them with the ability to choose...and if he tampered with that ablity for better or worse then it would certainly be in violation of free will.

In any case, I would not go as far as to call this puppeteering. The minimal amount of involvement is as close as it possibly gets, arguably reaching the mark.

Say I simply argued that making us fully conscious of our decisions and their reciprocations is the right way to go. What is the argument against that?

Would that make us too aware of the actions? Would all of us fully understanding the consequences of bullying, murder or eating an apple take away something from us? Or making humans mentally slow, psychotic or with Asperger's syndrome gives us a desired dimension?
Would we be too capable of making moral decisions? Or does infinite punishment need a little twist?

Are you suggesting humans should be given some form of omnipotence? Or merely asking that a clear divide between the right choice and wrong choice is outlined? If it's the latter, that's kinda the whole point of the various instruction left for humans, and the open invitation to ask for pointers. If it's the former...well...that kinda takes the fun out of life doesn't it xP

...yet, isn't forgiveness one of the central components of the Christian belief?

Forgiveness doesn't mean a total lack of punishment all the time.

[Rafcio]

Originally Posted by Juno

The teacher is so great all the students show up rested, well-nourished and having studied as well? I think you want me to assume that, so I shall.

So you're posing that the student simply has to decide whether to write the answer they know is right or to write some other answer? I would argue that's how it is. They were clearly told not to eat the fruit, but they chose to eat it anyway.

Let me know if i'm misunderstanding you >_<

Not quite. Unless you're used to seeing "Ye shall not surely die:
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." types of trick sentences on the test, which directly contradict the teacher.
The way I see it, God didn't ensure they ultimately know the dilemma, or else they wouldn't be gullible. Gullibility is not an acceptable element in my proposition. Defiance is, but it would have to be fully conscious defiance, which is not the case here because they thought that they were being lied to by God.
They didn't fully understand both sides (serpent and god) and then still decide to oppose god. A good teacher would explain the invalidity of the other propositions.

If the serpent contradicts god, and they go with serpent based on the contradiction, then they weren't aware of the facts.

Originally Posted by Juno

If they are created in such a way where they will always choose one thing over the other, 100% of the time, 0 exceptions, then it can't be said they are given a choice. I do not think that's the case here though.



I'm stepping a bit here, but I think it important to remember that omni-potence sin't the same as omni-influence. If God creates you fallible knowing that you will make the wrong choice, it's not the same as if he pre-dispositioned you to make that choice. Well, it can be argued that he has technically done so, but we must also note that he created them with the ability to choose...and if he tampered with that ablity for better or worse then it would certainly be in violation of free will.

In any case, I would not go as far as to call this puppeteering. The minimal amount of involvement is as close as it possibly gets, arguably reaching the mark.

The significance of my argument isn't that something is puppeteering or not, it's that it's just as much puppeteering i both cases.
I think you're applying a double standard here. You have not successfully drawn a distinction between the "educated" and the "uneducated" person.

"If God creates you fallible knowing that you will make the wrong choice, it's not the same as if he pre-dispositioned you to make that choice."
Actually that's exactly the same. And also identical to being made to make the right choice.

As for your sentence about giving them the ability to choose: The facts contradict this. Besides, even if this was a valid argument, I could just as easily say that god could create the educated one with an ability to choose. It makes just as much sense and as much external support.

Originally Posted by Juno

Are you suggesting humans should be given some form of omnipotence? Or merely asking that a clear divide between the right choice and wrong choice is outlined? If it's the latter, that's kinda the whole point of the various instruction left for humans, and the open invitation to ask for pointers. If it's the former...well...that kinda takes the fun out of life doesn't it xP

Well, here I was proposing a sort of omni-knowledge of the choice, so that people may make actual conscious decisions, as opposed to basing them on misinformation, and then getting punished for it.

I don't know where would you classify it. It's more than just a divide between the good and bad, because it includes understanding of the choice and its effects as well. It's not really omnipotence either.

Even if you did classify it as one or another, it taking fun out of life, might be true, but it's not really an argument. As for the existing divide, if the pivotal point of the debate was to be based on the infallibility and lack of contradictions of the Bible or other teachings and the usefulness of prayer, then I pretty much won the argument.

[Juno]

The way I see it, God didn't ensure they ultimately know the dilemma, or else they wouldn't be gullible. Gullibility is not an acceptable element in my proposition. Defiance is, but it would have to be fully conscious defiance, which is not the case here because they thought that they were being lied to by God.

Ah, so you're saying that because the serpent lied to them, they shouldn't have been punished? If so, I definitely disagree. If they felt they were being lied to the correct response would have been to ask, recieve more information, and then determine the appropiate course of action. To assume that God was lying but that the serpent couldn't possibly be lying was certainly a misstep on their part, not a case of puppeteering.

If the serpent contradicts god, and they go with serpent based on the contradiction, then they weren't aware of the facts.

Nor did they make an effort to become aware of them, though that choice was certainly available to them.

The significance of my argument isn't that something is puppeteering or not, it's that it's just as much puppeteering i both cases.
I think you're applying a double standard here. You have not successfully drawn a distinction between the "educated" and the "uneducated" person.

If both cases contain only trace elements of puppeteering, and both have the same amount...then...the problem? It's virtually none existant and it can be argued it does not exist because it is the minimum amount possible. The word puppeteering implies that there is some effort to pull the strings, which is clearly not the case.

As to this educated and non-educated thing, I'm a little lost as to what you want with that...

"If God creates you fallible knowing that you will make the wrong choice, it's not the same as if he pre-dispositioned you to make that choice."
Actually that's exactly the same. And also identical to being made to make the right choice.

This is the underlying point on which we disagree...I say that pre-dispositioning means that they were created with the intent of them making a certain choice. This was not the case.

As for your sentence about giving them the ability to choose: The facts contradict this. Besides, even if this was a valid argument, I could just as easily say that god could create the educated one with an ability to choose. It makes just as much sense and as much external support.

The facts contradict this? Howso? Please don't be annoyed if it seems I'm asking obvious questions, I'm getting a little lost here...

Well, here I was proposing a sort of omni-knowledge of the choice, so that people may make actual conscious decisions, as opposed to basing them on misinformation, and then getting punished for it.

That's an interesting question. However, in this specific case there was a definite mistake in choosing which sources to trust. The being that created you and everything else or the snake sliding around in the dirt that contradicts this being. I maintain they should have been more responsible in getting more information. Having an omni-knowledge of the choice would defeat the purpose the test as there is ultimately one correct course of action.

I don't know where would you classify it. It's more than just a divide between the good and bad, because it includes understanding of the choice and its effects as well. It's not really omnipotence either.

yeah I'm just hoping I got the concept right this time xD

Even if you did classify it as one or another, it taking fun out of life, might be true, but it's not really an argument. As for the existing divide, if the pivotal point of the debate was to be based on the infallibility and lack of contradictions of the Bible or other teachings and the usefulness of prayer, then I pretty much won the argument.

again with this concept of 'winning' an argument >_>

That's sort of a can of worms that can easily bog us down from any further progress here, so I've no intention of pressing it open...however, given the specific nature of the original questions, we can conclude that Adam and Eve were left with a clear divide between what to do and what not to do.

[Rafcio]

Originally Posted by Juno

Ah, so you're saying that because the serpent lied to them, they shouldn't have been punished? If so, I definitely disagree. If they felt they were being lied to the correct response would have been to ask, recieve more information, and then determine the appropiate course of action. To assume that God was lying but that the serpent couldn't possibly be lying was certainly a misstep on their part, not a case of puppeteering.

Nor did they make an effort to become aware of them, though that choice was certainly available to them.

Heh, it's hard claim a definitive reason why they went with the serpent. He did say he'll enlighten them. Such punishment of unenlightened for choosing the wrong source of enlightenment is wrong.
I think it's at least plausible that they were naive enough, and naivety isn't much of a reason for punishment in itself (since no actual harm came from eating an apple, it's all about the principle).
Of course there could potentially be some fault attached to them, but being untrusty of god for example, (like any good skeptic would ) is in fact the result of their ignorance which god knew they'd have when creating them. If they didn't have full knowledge of the situation, then perhaps some punishment is due depending on the details, but it is certainly not worth punishing with... death.
Also such speculated faults are not the ones usually associated with Adam and Eve, since their story is usually described as wilful defiance of god, while I'm trying to convey that wilful defiance only goes as far as consciousness of action, and they didn't have much of it.

Basically my point in a nut shell is that punishing Adam and Eve and other humans with death or eternal hell is comparable with punishing a child for whatever action, with a death sentence. We and our imperfections are like children to our proposed fully aware individuals, and therefore any punishment which essentially results from our god given imperfections is ridiculous.

I realize I'm over interpreting this simplistic story, but it's its own fault for pretending to literally or not be the message about the nature of the world and its creator as opposed to staying as a children's moral story of obeying your parents that it is.

If both cases contain only trace elements of puppeteering, and both have the same amount...then...the problem? It's virtually none existant and it can be argued it does not exist because it is the minimum amount possible. The word puppeteering implies that there is some effort to pull the strings, which is clearly not the case.

As to this educated and non-educated thing, I'm a little lost as to what you want with that...

Heh. I don't have a problem with it. My point wasn't to get into a discussion of how much puppeteering is going on.
The point is that god creating humans fully aware of their actions who'd know within their nature know what's good or bad and why, would be just as free and real world, except it would be a better world, and any godly punishment would actually be fully justified. You definitely appeared to disagree with my position, but if not then that's even better.

This is the underlying point on which we disagree...I say that pre-dispositioning means that they were created with the intent of them making a certain choice. This was not the case.


The facts contradict this? Howso? Please don't be annoyed if it seems I'm asking obvious questions, I'm getting a little lost here...

When god made the circumstances of the choice, he also made the circumstances for our decision. Given the identical circumstances, humans will always choose the same way. The choice isn't a result of the immediate decision, but of our past experiences, which god has happened to arrange. Ironically, depending on the circumstances, the same person could be a saint or a criminal. Everyone is capable of terrible and good things, and punishing someone for creating them into bad circumstances (regardless if it was purposeful or not) is essentially what I see as wrong.

That's an interesting question. However, in this specific case there was a definite mistake in choosing which sources to trust. The being that created you and everything else or the snake sliding around in the dirt that contradicts this being. I maintain they should have been more responsible in getting more information. Having an omni-knowledge of the choice would defeat the purpose the test as there is ultimately one correct course of action.

I don't feel too different as well, for most of this paragraph, and I think I addressed most of this in the first part, except the last sentence.

No, omni-knowledge of choice, would actually be the only way of justifying the test. One should only be tested or punished for concious disobidiance or wrongdoing, as opposed to confused disobidiance stripped from a number of facts.
Your position is essentially advocating for addition of the confusion element to make the choosing more exotic and applicable to us, humans. The thing is, that if god indeed created us, we didn't have to be like this and there's no reason for it.

again with this concept of 'winning' an argument >_>

That's sort of a can of worms that can easily bog us down from any further progress here, so I've no intention of pressing it open...however, given the specific nature of the original questions, we can conclude that Adam and Eve were left with a clear divide between what to do and what not to do.

You may be right about winning argument part.
As for the clear divide, you could argue that they were indeed left with a clear divide, but when the clear divide was muddled by the serpent, the major problem was in their lack of understanding of this divide, and not so much in their incorrect choice.

[Apoo]

Punishing someone for wanting Knowledge, what an awful god.

[Insin]

Originally Posted by Rafcio

You may be right about winning argument part.
As for the clear divide, you could argue that they were indeed left with a clear divide, but when the clear divide was muddled by the serpent, the major problem was in their lack of understanding of this divide, and not so much in their incorrect choice.

If I overlook the whole God is omnipotent and illusion of free will thing, than I think my opinion would actually differ from yours lol. All the translations I have seen, God says "Eat and you will die."

I think taken from that context, it was quite clear that Adam and Eve knew that they should not eat the fruit. However the ambiguity of the text is what causes us to question. Genesis is short to a fault, lacking the necessarily details for us to put this into context. Was it possible for them to know what dying even was? Well that's a question that could be debated for quite some time.

However, the way Genesis reads, seems to be a depiction of a story for someone with a perspective more akin to us and not a chronicle of "innocent" people. I think the design behind the writing is for readers to put themselves in the shoes of Adam and Eve. I feel like the story is less a chronicle of a historical event (how could it be?) and more a story designed for people to place themselves in. In that way, I feel like Genesis could be more about the faithful readers who are reading the text, and not necessarily Adam and Eve themselves. To be more blunt, it's kind of like expecting the readers to replace Adam and Eve with themselves.

You can see this in some other works of philosophy, like how Zarathustra was not so much a character but an embodiment of a philosophy designed to be human so that men could see the philosophy more clearly. But I digress somewhat, because this is a more minor argument in a long chain or reasoning and debate that I mentioned in the beginning. It's like a short segment.

[Kataklyzm]

Originally Posted by Lucky Rou

Punishing someone for wanting Knowledge, what an awful god.

Why does that make God awful if it was knowledge they had no business wanting in the first place?

[AnarchoElk]

Originally Posted by Kataklyzm

Why does that make God awful if it was knowledge they had no business wanting in the first place?

ignorance is bliss right?

[Juno]

I may shortening the quotes a bit, but rest assured I am reading everything...just the length of these posts is getting insane.

Basically my point in a nut shell is that punishing Adam and Eve and other humans with death or eternal hell is comparable with punishing a child for whatever action, with a death sentence. We and our imperfections are like children to our proposed fully aware individuals, and therefore any punishment which essentially results from our god given imperfections is ridiculous.

I should point out that they weren't given the punishment in full, and while it was still harsh it was considerably less so. Perhaps God saw it from your point of view as well :>?

Heh. I don't have a problem with it. My point wasn't to get into a discussion of how much puppeteering is going on.
The point is that god creating humans fully aware of their actions who'd know within their nature know what's good or bad and why, would be just as free and real world, except it would be a better world, and any godly punishment would actually be fully justified. You definitely appeared to disagree with my position, but if not then that's even better.

Honestly, I agree that would be a better world. However, if that were the case then it would undue all other efforts to keep humans from becoming a sort of robotic God-following race, unless someone really wanted to piss God off which is unlikely.

When god made the circumstances of the choice, he also made the circumstances for our decision. Given the identical circumstances, humans will always choose the same way. The choice isn't a result of the immediate decision, but of our past experiences, which god has happened to arrange. Ironically, depending on the circumstances, the same person could be a saint or a criminal. Everyone is capable of terrible and good things, and punishing someone for creating them into bad circumstances (regardless if it was purposeful or not) is essentially what I see as wrong.

The experiences are not as arranged as you may think, and what we take away from those experiences is up to us. I understand it gets really tricky with the whole omnipotent business, but if the omnipotence wasn't there then God would be doing the exact same thing. That's a really key point, even though God knows what's going to happen, that information isn't used to pull strings and shape the outcome on a regular basis. Certainly, there have been some exceptions.

I can agree that punishing someone for creating them into bad circumstances is a jerk move, but I also think that despite the circumstances a different choice can still be made. There are some 'nets' for people who are completely ignorant of the desired choice though, so there is definitely some effort made not to punish those who honestly didn't have the opportunity to make the right choice. I can't remember the reference for the life of me though...but I'll ask some other people about it

This is google's response, it's not quite what I'm looking for...and neither is this, but it'll work.

No, omni-knowledge of choice, would actually be the only way of justifying the test. One should only be tested or punished for concious disobidiance or wrongdoing, as opposed to confused disobidiance stripped from a number of facts.
Your position is essentially advocating for addition of the confusion element to make the choosing more exotic and applicable to us, humans. The thing is, that if god indeed created us, we didn't have to be like this and there's no reason for it.

I definitely understand exactly what you're saying now x3. I don't think there should have been any confusion; they should not have even thought of trusting a creature they had been put in authority over before the one who gave them that authority.

If the being that approached them had been on par then I'd be more open to debates about whether or not they should have been confused.

As for the clear divide, you could argue that they were indeed left with a clear divide, but when the clear divide was muddled by the serpent, the major problem was in their lack of understanding of this divide, and not so much in their incorrect choice.

I would argue that their mistake was trusting the serpent enough that he was able to muddle the divide.

Punishing someone for wanting Knowledge, what an awful god.

Gee Tony, what an excellent contribution! You're obviously not just taking shots at a certain religion without meaningful exploration. I'm so glad you were mod of this section for however long that lasted, you're obviously tremendously qualified.

[Apoo]

Originally Posted by Kataklyzm

Why does that make God awful if it was knowledge they had no business wanting in the first place?

Why? Because god said so?, that would make him a jackass.

Gee Tony, what an excellent contribution! You're obviously not just taking shots at a certain religion without meaningful exploration. I'm so glad you were mod of this section for however long that lasted, you're obviously tremendously qualified.
__________________

It's an observation. Sorry if you are offended, enlighten me then.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by XandorXerxes

He did - it was a command from him not to eat the fruit (assuming I remember right). They were banished for not listening to him. Again, the point is that God gave man the ability to reject his (or anyones) commands - they just have to be prepared for any consequences (even unforseen ones) that arise out of that choice.

This is not rationally explaining a coherent reason as to why they shouldn't eat the fruit.

The problem is there is no rationale reason to not eat the fruit, if wisdom is a virtue, you would want to do it, irrespective of Gods command.

In fact Gods command is essentially promoting ignorance, is this what a wise god would do?

Originally Posted by XandorXerxes

Well, it's just that - a story. I'm not one of the Christians who believes every word the bible says just because it's the bible. I find that usually the stories included are for the moral benefit of the reader and not for history's sake - in this case, the point would be "God gave us free will, but we have to use it responsibly and take any consequences that arise from our decision" and not "God created us from dust in a week."

So the moral of the story is to not question your superiors and remain in ignorance.

Don't gimme this bullshit about 'the moral of the story is accepting the consequences', so i guess black slaves should 'accept' getting their ass beaten when disobeying their white slave masters?

Btw, i believe wanting wisdom, as a choice of our free will, is a virtue, and not something to be punished.

[Kataklyzm]

Originally Posted by Lucky Rou

Why? Because god said so?, that would make him a jackass.

So you don't like that he set a restriction?

[Apoo]

That's right I don't. Anyone that would deny other people knowledge for the lulz like your god is a jackass.