She who is without Sin

[ppp]

Sure we can; by how the stories were being used.

No you can't. As the stories were created well prior to historical records, you don't know how they were being used by their composers. You interpretations are simply spun from your imagination and your biased agenda.

And all you have offered to counter my interpretation are two enigmatic lines.

Heh. The lines are not enigmatic just because they confound you.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Adam and Eve were tempted by knowledge of good and evil. War! What is it good for?

 

[Pipiripi]

I don't need to know everything you believe. Just those questions I asked. And two of them can be answered with a "yes" or "no".

1. I believe completely in Adam and Eve are literal the way the Bible describes them.
2. I believe completely in the writings of Ellen G White.
3. Yes, I followed the 10 Commandments the best that I can.
4. In 1844 Jesus moved from the sacred place to the most sacred. He have go next His Father, and judgment begin.

 

[PureX]

No you can't. As the stories were created well prior to historical records, you don't know how they were being used by their composers. You interpretations are simply spun from your imagination and your biased agenda.

What they were before they were written down, is irrelevant.

The lines are not enigmatic just because they confound you.

They have long confounded everyone. To this day there is not clear idea who the "us" is referring to. Clearly the people who used those stories did not and do not believe there is a pantheon of gods. And yet that is what the "us" seems to be implying. So unless you can explain this, I think we can safely label that line 'enigmatic'.

 

[DKH]

I was not proposing a secular morality.

I respectively disagree…In your original questions, you asked: If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation? Where, I stated: This is the main point of the writings! Man is unable to properly decide: "What is good and what is evil." Thus, only God can determine the proper context to what is good and what is evil.

Hence, the purpose of God commanding that the newly created beings not to touch or eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was for them to avoid moral evaluations…So, the idea of moral evaluations should not be considered to be a biblical concept for the believer in God's words and will. It is only a secular concept. Now, you may disagree, but there are only two options in this scenario: God's will or man's will.

How did Eve could know that she ought to be obedient to God.

Because, God or Adam told her and she acknowledged God's command and the main consequence for disobedience to the serpent (Genesis 2:16-17 & 3:1-3). And, if one would continue to read Genesis 3, it becomes clear that a change occurred in Adam and Eve after they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (hiding from God, being afraid (of God) and embarrassment). Which, it seems was not part of their psyche, before disobeying God's command.

I assume that you accept that this is not the Tree of the Knowledge of [Secular] Good and Evil.

Again, there are reasons why God didn't want Adam/Eve to be encumbered by moral evaluations. So, the truth is that the knowledge of secular (not upholding to God's will) morality would be included in the knowledge related to good and evil. We only need to consider the fallen angels and man's recorded history to realize this…

I also wonder how you think that you are capable of knowing what God's morality is?

By the New Covenant that God made with me. See: Hebrews 8:1-11 (Jeremiah 31:31-33).


Note: Even though I have used bible verses for support, this posting is my personal opinion and should only be understood in that context.

 

[ppp]

What they were before they were written down, is irrelevant.

Incorrect.

They have long confounded everyone.

Incorrect.

Clearly the people who used those stories did not and do not believe there is a pantheon of gods.

Incorrect. They clearly started as polytheists, shifted to henotheism and eventually became hard monotheists,

 

[ppp]

I respectively disagree…In your original questions, you asked: If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation? Where, I stated: This is the main point of the writings! Man is unable to properly decide: "What is good and what is evil." Thus, only God can determine the proper context to what is good and what is evil.

Hence, the purpose of God commanding that the newly created beings not to touch or eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was for them to avoid moral evaluations…So, the idea of moral evaluations should not be considered to be a biblical concept for the believer in God's words and will. It is only a secular concept. Now, you may disagree, but there are only two options in this scenario: God's will or man's will.

This seems to contradict what you just said. It clearly says that Eve has gained the ability to know good from evil. Which is all the moral evaluation is. And since God says "become like one of us, knowing good from evil" I assume that God does not have a secular morality. No?

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." --Gen 3:22
​

Because, God or Adam told her and she acknowledged God's command and the main consequence for disobedience to the serpent (Genesis 2:16-17 & 3:1-3).

I think you are confusing ought with is. Knowing that you were commanded to do a thing is not the same as the knowledge that you ought to follow that command. Ought derive from imperatives of an internal goal, such as morality. Without morality as an internal goal - a moral compass, if you will -- Eve could not have a moral imperative to obedience. The Eden story strongly implies that she had no such moral compass - no understanding that of north (good) or south (evil) existed until she ate the fruit.

I think that you are trying to sneak the capacity for making that distinction into Eve before eating of the tree.

 

[PureX]

They clearly started as polytheists, shifted to henotheism and eventually became hard monotheists,

Based on one line out of thousands? Nothing "clearly" about it.

 

[ppp]

Based on one line out of thousands? Nothing "clearly" about it.

Nope. Not based on one line our of thousands. And I mock you for asking for justification for my position, when you absolutely refuse to provide any for yours.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no "should" prior to moral comprehension. 'Should and Should not' and 'Ought and ought not' and 'good and evil' are moral evaluations. If your position is that pre-fruit that Eve had no comprehension of good and evil, then she could not possibly have contemplated "should".

If she was pre-moral, then there was no concept that not obeying was "wrong"

Eve had free will. She was told by her Father to obey. She knew what disobedience was.

Satan's lie was that Eve would come to a heightened understanding of morality by disobedience.

 

[ppp]

Eve had free will. She was told by her Father to obey. She knew what disobedience was.

Which is merely a repetition of what was said before. It does not address my point. I know what disobedience is. Knowing that someone wants me to obey them does nothing to tell me that I should believe them.

Explain why Eve should have obeyed god with out referencing any sort of moral obligation. Because he's God? Because he created her? Where is the obligation without a moral obligation?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Which is merely a repetition of what was said before. It does not address my point. I know what disobedience is. Knowing that someone wants me to obey them does nothing to tell me that I should believe them.

Explain why Eve should have obeyed god with out referencing any sort of moral obligation. Because he's God? Because he created her? Where is the obligation without a moral obligation?

Did Eve and Adam have love before they fell? The goal of Christian parenting is to make the child obey their parents since they love them, and to honor them/not disappoint them.

Eve's father said "Don't!" and Eve had the opportunity to not fall, for no temptation has overtaken a person without God having provided a way out of it.

 

[ppp]

Did Eve and Adam have love before they fell? The goal of Christian parenting is to make the child obey their parents since they love them, and to honor them/not disappoint them.

If that is actually the goal, that is some seriously crappy, egocentric parenting.

Eve's father said "Don't!" and Eve had the opportunity to not fall, for no temptation has overtaken a person without God having provided a way out of it.

The question was:

Explain why Eve should have obeyed god with out referencing any sort of moral obligation. Because he's God? Because he created her? Where is the obligation without a moral obligation?​

Your response is an answer to something else entirely.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If that is actually the goal, that is some seriously crappy, egocentric parenting.


The question was:

Explain why Eve should have obeyed god with out referencing any sort of moral obligation. Because he's God? Because he created her? Where is the obligation without a moral obligation?​

Your response is an answer to something else entirely.

Christians whose children are obedient have children who love their parents and WANT to be good despite their sin nature. Why the insults to my parenting?

Sin is disobeying God. Are you saying that Eve didn't disobey a command when she ate the fruit?

I don't want to have a controversy where we lack clarity, so I'll let you have the last word here.

 

[ppp]

Christians whose children are obedient have children who love their parents and WANT to be good despite their sin nature. Why the insults to my parenting?

Because your goal is what your children provide to you - deference to you and honor to you. Good parenting is not focused on what your rewards. Hence the entirely appropriate derision of all such parenting. If you are in that lot, so be it.

Sin is disobeying God. Are you saying that Eve didn't disobey a command when she ate the fruit?

The question was:
Explain why Eve should have obeyed god with out referencing any sort of moral obligation. Because he's God? Because he created her? Where is the obligation without a moral obligation?

 

[Pipiripi]

Did Eve and Adam have love before they fell? The goal of Christian parenting is to make the child obey their parents since they love them, and to honor them/not disappoint them.

Eve's father said "Don't!" and Eve had the opportunity to not fall, for no temptation has overtaken a person without God having provided a way out of it.

At that time they have eternal live, no need to hury. It isn't their time yet. But they have fail.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Because your goal is what your children provide to you - deference to you and honor to you. Good parenting is not focused on what your rewards. Hence the entirely appropriate derision of all such parenting. If you are in that lot, so be it.


The question was:
Explain why Eve should have obeyed god with out referencing any sort of moral obligation. Because he's God? Because he created her? Where is the obligation without a moral obligation?

I'm not in it for honor to me--though I've heard many skeptics use this as a reason for refusing to trust Jesus for salvation, by the way.

The goal is for children to live happy, productive lives. One parent may threaten the child with time outs and punishments, and then the child partly lives in fear, obeys to not be punished, and has trouble overcoming sin.

In our parenting, our children wanted to do well, be better people. Very simple, really.

As for Eve, you've emphasized obligation. I'm trying to emphasize love. Eve loves her Father, wants to please Him, realizes if she eats that fruit, she'll displease Him/dishonor Him, but the fruit looks good . . . we who focus on love worry little about obligation and law, believe it or not.

For example, the law says not to commit adultery, but my spouse and I avoid not just physical entanglement outside our marriage, but all kinds if inappropriate intimacy with others.

Or the law says not to kill, but I strive to love my enemies.

The love of God can overcome the temptation to sin--at times--since sin is pervasive, powerful. Eve sinned.

 

[ppp]

The goal of Christian parenting is to make the child obey their parents since they love them, and to honor them/not disappoint them.

I'm not in it for honor to me

Heh.

though I've heard many skeptics use this as a reason for refusing to trust Jesus for salvation, by the way.

No, you haven't.

The goal is for children to live happy, productive lives. One parent may threaten the child with time outs and punishments, and then the child partly lives in fear, obeys to not be punished, and has trouble overcoming sin.

Sin and eternal torture or annihilation is just the extreme and abusive version of threatening a child (and eventually the adult) so that they live in fear obeying so as not to be punished.

As for Eve, you've emphasized obligation. I'm trying to emphasize love. Eve loves her Father, wants to please Him, realizes if she eats that fruit, she'll displease Him/dishonor Him, but the fruit looks good . . . we who focus on love worry little about obligation and law, believe it or not.

The concept of "(dis)honor" requires a sense of moral obligation. The word honor entails an adherence to conduct that is morally right. You are denying that you are talking about moral obligation on one hand, while trying to sneak it in with the other. No, thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Heh.

No, you haven't.

Sin and eternal torture or annihilation is just the extreme and abusive version of threatening a child (and eventually the adult) so that they live in fear obeying so as not to be punished.


The concept of "(dis)honor" requires a sense of moral obligation. The word honor entails an adherence to conduct that is morally right. You are denying that you are talking about moral obligation on one hand, while trying to sneak it in with the other. No, thanks.

Why are we arguing about whether Eve had a "sense of moral obligation"?

If it's to assign blame to anyone besides Adam and Eve, I'm not interested.

 

[ppp]

In your particular take on the Fall in Eden, assuming that you have one:
Did Eve have the knowledge of good and evil before eating of the fruit of Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

If so, what is the difference between the good and evil she had knowledge of before eating, and the Good and Evil she had knowledge of immediately after?

If she did not understand good and evil, how could she sin without that capacity for moral evaluation?

Why are we arguing about whether Eve had a "sense of moral obligation"?

I don't know your motives, so I won't speak for "we". I am looking for a coherent definition of sin that accounts for punishment for immoral action upon a person who was depicted by the story as being without moral comprehension. It makes no sense to call someone immoral when they have no comprehension of morality.

If it's to assign blame to anyone besides Adam and Eve, I'm not interested.

I am fine with any outcome. If you aren't, then you go do whatever you need to do.