The fall of man; Free will

[dmgdnooc]

Adam could speak and understand what was said to him by God.
He understood the meaning of the word evil.
But had no experience of actual evil.
　
The point is so simple and true that you revert to absurdities, and repeat your original assertion.
I take that to mean that you cannot refute the point.
　

 

[waitasec]

Adam could speak and understand what was said to him by God.
He understood the meaning of the word evil.
But had no experience of actual evil.
　
The point is so simple and true that you revert to absurdities, and repeat your original assertion.
I take that to mean that you cannot refute the point.
　

don't you see, this explanation for the fall of man doesn't answer questions it only begets more and more questions?
then it ultimately becomes a tree of questions...

knowledge of good and evil can only come from experience
like you said, it might as well have been the tree of gobbily gook

how was eve to understand the concept of "desirable" if she did not know what good meant.. do we desire good things for ourselves or evil things?
according this legend we are led to a conundrum
for some....

 

[dmgdnooc]

don't you see, this explanation for the fall of man doesn't answer questions it only begets more and more questions?
then it ultimately becomes a tree of questions...

knowledge of good and evil can only come from experience
like you said, it might as well have been the tree of gobbily gook

how was eve to understand the concept of "desirable" if she did not know what good meant.. do we desire good things for ourselves or evil things?
according this legend we are led to a conundrum
for some....

This answers your specific question 'did Adam know the act of disobedience was evil?'
and also makes it clear that he knew what evil was.
The answer cannot be written off or discounted because of some unstated other question that may or may not arise.
It should be accepted, taken on board, and thought about with the understanding that every answer leads to one or more other questions.
　
You misrepresent me, I said 'He must have known what the word (evil) meant or the tree's name would have been gobbldy gook to him'.
But fact is he did understand the idea of evil and was aware of the consequences of eating.
He understood the idea of evil by his understanding of language and his ability to reason from his experience of good.
His understanding of evil was intellectual, or theoretical, not experiential.
And he understood that death was the consequence of eating, that had been clearly stated to him, and he had taken care to relate the consequence to Eve.
　
Eve is in a different case. She was deceived.
But she was not deceived by misunderstanding the idea of evil.
　
I'll see you later for a discussion of Eve's case, I'm off to bed.
Goodnight.:sleep:
　

 

[jonman122]

This answers your specific question 'did Adam know the act of disobedience was evil?'
and also makes it clear that he knew what evil was.
The answer cannot be written off or discounted because of some unstated other question that may or may not arise.
It should be accepted, taken on board, and thought about with the understanding that every answer leads to one or more other questions.
　
You misrepresent me, I said 'He must have known what the word (evil) meant or the tree's name would have been gobbldy gook to him'.
But fact is he did understand the idea of evil and was aware of the consequences of eating.
He understood the idea of evil by his understanding of language and his ability to reason from his experience of good.
His understanding of evil was intellectual, or theoretical, not experiential.
And he understood that death was the consequence of eating, that had been clearly stated to him, and he had taken care to relate the consequence to Eve.
　
Eve is in a different case. She was deceived.
But she was not deceived by misunderstanding the idea of evil.
　
I'll see you later for a discussion of Eve's case, I'm off to bed.
Goodnight.:sleep:
　

NOOOO if Adam and Eve already knew what the tree of knowledge was going to tell them, then why would they even care to be NEAR such a tree, when they understand the concept of what is going to happen to them if they eat from it? The only logical explanation is that they in fact had no idea what was going to happen to them and they had no idea what the tree meant or had any concept of good or evil, and this IS demonstrated by Adam and Eve covering themselves once they eat from the tree, because they had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of what was considered evil (not being covered)

Conclusion: Adam and Eve had no prior knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree of knowledge.

and beyond that, Adam and Eve have never existed in the sense put forward by the bible, so arguing over whether or not they had prior knowledge of good and evil is pointless. And if we're just arguing the basic meaning of the beginning of the Genesis story, then yeah it was knowledge is bad and you should just listen to God and the priests who interpret the word of god.

How could a book about what happened in genesis be written 3000 years after it happened? sounds akin to Lord of the Rings to me. Frodo stopped our worlds destruction, we would all be living as slaves of Sauron right now if it weren't for his hobbitiness 2000 years ago. We have no proof it happened, but somebody wrote a book on it so it must be true. The book itself even says it's true! There is no refuting this.

 

[waitasec]

NOOOO if Adam and Eve already knew what the tree of knowledge was going to tell them, then why would they even care to be NEAR such a tree, when they understand the concept of what is going to happen to them if they eat from it? The only logical explanation is that they in fact had no idea what was going to happen to them and they had no idea what the tree meant or had any concept of good or evil, and this IS demonstrated by Adam and Eve covering themselves once they eat from the tree, because they had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of what was considered evil (not being covered)

Conclusion: Adam and Eve had no prior knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree of knowledge.

and beyond that, Adam and Eve have never existed in the sense put forward by the bible, so arguing over whether or not they had prior knowledge of good and evil is pointless. And if we're just arguing the basic meaning of the beginning of the Genesis story, then yeah it was knowledge is bad and you should just listen to God and the priests who interpret the word of god.

How could a book about what happened in genesis be written 3000 years after it happened? sounds akin to Lord of the Rings to me. Frodo stopped our worlds destruction, we would all be living as slaves of Sauron right now if it weren't for his hobbitiness 2000 years ago. We have no proof it happened, but somebody wrote a book on it so it must be true. The book itself even says it's true! There is no refuting this.

when the believers try to reason with non-believers about this fundamental notion of our free will... it'll hopefully get us to start a conversation based on ideas, rather than dogma... otherwise, there is no progress.

 

[dmgdnooc]

NOOOO if Adam and Eve already knew what the tree of knowledge was going to tell them, then why would they even care to be NEAR such a tree, when they understand the concept of what is going to happen to them if they eat from it? The only logical explanation is that they in fact had no idea what was going to happen to them and they had no idea what the tree meant or had any concept of good or evil, and this IS demonstrated by Adam and Eve covering themselves once they eat from the tree, because they had NO PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of what was considered evil (not being covered)

Conclusion: Adam and Eve had no prior knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree of knowledge.

and beyond that, Adam and Eve have never existed in the sense put forward by the bible, so arguing over whether or not they had prior knowledge of good and evil is pointless. And if we're just arguing the basic meaning of the beginning of the Genesis story, then yeah it was knowledge is bad and you should just listen to God and the priests who interpret the word of god.

How could a book about what happened in genesis be written 3000 years after it happened? sounds akin to Lord of the Rings to me. Frodo stopped our worlds destruction, we would all be living as slaves of Sauron right now if it weren't for his hobbitiness 2000 years ago. We have no proof it happened, but somebody wrote a book on it so it must be true. The book itself even says it's true! There is no refuting this.

You have not addressed my reasoning.
Merely asserting that 'they had no prior knowledge', no matter how large and bold the letters are, ignores the fact that they understood what the word meant (or there was no point using the word when speaking to them, or in using the word in the name of the tree).
And the assertion assumes that they could not reason on 'evil' from an experience of 'good'.
They had been told that they 'would surely die'; they had an understanding, though it was an incomplete understanding, of the consequence of eating.
　
Your reasoning appears to suppose that their genitals were evil.
It is an idea exceedingly strange to me, an idea not in the scriptures.
I doubt that you believe that genitals are evil, so why force the idea onto the episode in Eden.
　
You assert that the Eden episode, if it happened, must have transpired as you say it did and not as it is recorded.
　
It sounds to me as though JRRT would take exception to the things you say about LOTR; they are every bit as uninformed as your comments on Genesis.
Frodo did not stop the world's destruction, despite all his labour he failed and claimed the Ring as his own.
That you also misunderstand this point, from popular literature, shows that you are a sloppy reader of things other than the Bbile.
I am pleased that you have pointed this out because maybe your sloppiness with the Genesis text is not an indication of malice.
　

 

[jml03]

then don't come here
no one is making you, this is your choice
i warned you that this could get ugly, remember?

Are you in the habit of trying to bully your way around this site? You will not run me anywhere. If God be for me, WHO can be against me? Just because I dislike what you say, does not mean I'm going to run off with my tail between my legs - and furthermore, perhaps you would like to comment on something else than this childish way of beating around the bush. Enlighten me with something, oh waitasec - you can't. You cannot bring anything new to the table. Your same ol same ol theories, etc. There is no feelings affected by your belief system. I can learn everything I need to know about what you are saying from a book. In other words, what you have to say has already been said. Nothing new, no new wisdom, no new opinion - Boring, day old stuff. Thanks for your stale bread.

 

[jml03]

not really no

and you know this, how? You were present for His death, and know for sure He did not come back? Some ancient texts? What is your proof?

 

[it's_sam]

One way God let them know they would die if they ate the fruit "no words". For a long time and up untill only a few hundred years ago have we been eating tomatos. In nature there are two tell-all signs of danger, the color Black and the color Red. It was thought tomatos were poisonous and they werent used for food along with some red berries. If they naturaly knew the color red to be danger a red apple would be telling them "dont eat me" everytime you look at it. God created this will "do not eat the fruit" naturaly in its design to scare them "self defense of the tree to preserve its life/fruit and make it unappealing". Like with a stink bug if you see its wings go up and its flashing the red underside, you might not know whats comming next but you will deffinitely be sorry.

 

[it's_sam]

Perhaps a passing Boa constrictor happened to swallow one of these apples and didnt die. It would seem to me like that snake just said "HEY check it out im alive still! Try it for yourself!"

 

[jonman122]

You have not addressed my reasoning.
Merely asserting that 'they had no prior knowledge', no matter how large and bold the letters are, ignores the fact that they understood what the word meant (or there was no point using the word when speaking to them, or in using the word in the name of the tree).
And the assertion assumes that they could not reason on 'evil' from an experience of 'good'.
They had been told that they 'would surely die'; they had an understanding, though it was an incomplete understanding, of the consequence of eating.
　
Your reasoning appears to suppose that their genitals were evil.
It is an idea exceedingly strange to me, an idea not in the scriptures.
I doubt that you believe that genitals are evil, so why force the idea onto the episode in Eden.
　
You assert that the Eden episode, if it happened, must have transpired as you say it did and not as it is recorded.
　
It sounds to me as though JRRT would take exception to the things you say about LOTR; they are every bit as uninformed as your comments on Genesis.
Frodo did not stop the world's destruction, despite all his labour he failed and claimed the Ring as his own.
That you also misunderstand this point, from popular literature, shows that you are a sloppy reader of things other than the Bbile.
I am pleased that you have pointed this out because maybe your sloppiness with the Genesis text is not an indication of malice.
　

In the end of LoTR, regardless of what transpired, the ring went in to the fire, so again you have made absolutely no point at all. Only Sam and Frodo knew that Frodo had claimed the ring, and if you would rather i went in to a detailed account about the entire story of Frodo and the LoTR story, we'd probably have to move this elsewhere.

And as for Genesis:
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"



So wherever you got your information from, you were dually misinformed and i apologize for not citing my sources before. (my sources being the bible which you have obviously not actually read)

They didn't even know that they were NAKED let alone know the difference between 'good and evil.' It's like saying a 1 year old has a moral code and knows that coveting the neighbours wife is bad.

 

[dmgdnooc]

In the end of LoTR, regardless of what transpired, the ring went in to the fire, so again you have made absolutely no point at all. Only Sam and Frodo knew that Frodo had claimed the ring, and if you would rather i went in to a detailed account about the entire story of Frodo and the LoTR story, we'd probably have to move this elsewhere.

And as for Genesis:
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"
10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."
11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"



So wherever you got your information from, you were dually misinformed and i apologize for not citing my sources before. (my sources being the bible which you have obviously not actually read)

They didn't even know that they were NAKED let alone know the difference between 'good and evil.' It's like saying a 1 year old has a moral code and knows that coveting the neighbours wife is bad.

OK, so regardless of the words of the story LOTR, and regardless of what JRRT is recorded as saying about the story, you will stick with your original idea that Frodo saved the world.
Read his letters on the subject, no don't bother, it seems they wouldn't change your opinion.
　
You have still not addressed my reasoning merely repeated your assertion.
　
The Bible does not give an indication that genitals are evil.
The Edenic pair had genitals when all things were pronounced 'good'.
That pronouncement of 'goodness' included their genitals.
So why do you suppose genitals are evil?

 

[waitasec]

then don't come here
no one is making you, this is your choice
i warned you that this could get ugly, remember?

Are you in the habit of trying to bully your way around this site?

#12 i said this...remember?

jml03
Please if your purpose being on this forum is to 'enlighten' unbelievers', please be advised your faith will be subject to doubt, if you are not prepared for that I suggest thinking twice about it.

these forums are for debate not a conversion tool; if that is your PURPOSE to be here...

You will not run me anywhere. If God be for me, WHO can be against me? Just because I dislike what you say, does not mean I'm going to run off with my tail between my legs

to trust in the lord is a hard thing to do, isn't it :yes:
this is a forum for debate, if you have forgotten. i am not so sure what you are so angry about, our last exchange was about the gospels, in this case, the transfiguration and the 2nd coming.... or is it something else, please be more specific so that i may address your frustration more accrurately

and furthermore, perhaps you would like to comment on something else than this childish way of beating around the bush.

my comments have obviously fallen on deaf ears, i've been saying this all along...

"i don't think your god has wronged me
i believe the christian right has wronged humanity in general
with slavery, segregation, anti bi-racial marriages, sexism and heterosexism

all i'm asking is, were is your faith in the midst of these judgment’s and hunger for control over peoples private business...who appointed the christian right as mediator between our freedom of will and the laws of the god in your bible....
i believe we are all equal...you have your right to believe what you want to and so do i, the reason forums like these exist in the 1st place, is because the christian right/religious extremism infringe on our freedoms..."

Enlighten me with something, oh waitasec - you can't. You cannot bring anything new to the table. Your same ol same ol theories, etc. There is no feelings affected by your belief system. I can learn everything I need to know about what you are saying from a book. In other words, what you have to say has already been said. Nothing new, no new wisdom, no new opinion - Boring, day old stuff. Thanks for your stale bread.

if it is so boring then why do you keep coming back?

and in #12 again i said...

the subject here is our free will. The enemy of the god in your bible, the enemy of any god for that matter. "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven".
We consider our enemy to be evil, right? If 'god' being a "selfish" god is jealous of 'other gods', is he really jealous of god's that he himself knows cannot exist, for god is the creator of all, right? What is god jealous of then? Could it be the fact that our freedom of will trumps the all powerful god ... The ideology of an all powerful creator was created by man trying to explain the unexplainable, the meaning of life...why we die and how death is associated with evil.

if you don't like this debate and get that upset about it talk to your pastor and ask him what you should do...
"should i stay or should i go"

ahhh looks like you have issues with pride...let it go
it's easier than you think, after all, your keyboard is feeling your wrath more than i and you might have to go to Best Buys and buy another one...

 

[waitasec]

This answers your specific question 'did Adam know the act of disobedience was evil?'
and also makes it clear that he knew what evil was.
The answer cannot be written off or discounted because of some unstated other question that may or may not arise.
It should be accepted, taken on board, and thought about with the understanding that every answer leads to one or more other questions.

if this genesis story is FACT for you and you are happy with this explanation, fine, that is your choice. for me, i am not that easily persuadable...i have to know in my heart of hearts this is true and not just believe in it because of it's face value...
i can't help but ask question about something i regard as a silly belief.
why does an all powerful god need our faith? is it that insecure? the god in your bible seems more like a tyrant than a loving god that believers portray it to be...oh ya, he sacrificed his only son... and he's coming back...all because adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit... the entrapment the god in your bible ultimately set up, supposedly...nice.

...this was started up by a people that were oppressed and needed to believe in something that would give them strength to live through their oppression...then the christians ran with it and then the mormons and the the jehovahs witness...

　

You misrepresent me, I said 'He must have known what the word (evil) meant or the tree's name would have been gobbldy gook to him'.

and in your genius you said what i have been trying to say...the gobbldy gook tree
you cannot KNOW what good and EVIL means just by words alone, god said this is good this is bad...but what does that mean? they have to UNDERSTAND IT through experience WE all do. why was the tree there in the 1st place if they knew what good and evil meant?

But fact is he did understand the idea of evil and was aware of the consequences of eating.
He understood the idea of evil by his understanding of language and his ability to reason from his experience of good.

were you there? why say this is a FACT....it is your faith, you cannot prove faith...this is not fact because common sense/reason and logic says so
it your CHOICE to take this at face value

His understanding of evil was intellectual, or theoretical, not experiential.
And he understood that death was the consequence of eating, that had been clearly stated to him, and he had taken care to relate the consequence to Eve.

　
Eve is in a different case. She was deceived.
But she was not deceived by misunderstanding the idea of evil.[/QUOTE]

again how do you know all this? are you reading into this because of your faith?

as far as eve is concerned, according to you she was deceived and therefore
subjected to men.... NICE

 

[waitasec]

　
Your reasoning appears to suppose that their genitals were evil.
It is an idea exceedingly strange to me, an idea not in the scriptures.
I doubt that you believe that genitals are evil, so why force the idea onto the episode in Eden.
　

then instead of being ashamed for eating the fruit why is it the first thing they did was to cover themselves and not repent for their disobedience?

this ancient religion comes with many references to being covered
even the apostle paul used it;1 cor 11:5-10

5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.

7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

in this story, the 1st thing they did was to cover themselves, WHY is that?
you don't know and I don't know..why pretend to KNOW?

 

[it's_sam]

Who is pretending? We are trying to understand even if metaphoricaly. You are disregarding it completely as being of any use. No matter what you say about it we will try to understand it because why not? Because you say so? Who are you to say what happens and doesnt happen? Who are you to say the worthe of anything? We have equal right to think but you are trying to tell us not to because its pointless. You will not win this fight.

 

[waitasec]

　
The Bible does not give an indication that genitals are evil.
The Edenic pair had genitals when all things were pronounced 'good'.
That pronouncement of 'goodness' included their genitals.
So why do you suppose genitals are evil?

if god created man in his image then we are to assume god had/has genitals
did he have both perhaps or the male genitalia?
i think it is the male genitalia because he created adam 1st...men rule the world, right? and he did impregnate the virgin MARY. (god had a thing with virgins, it seems)
another curious thing...
was god naked when walked in the garden looking for adam and eve? or was he wearing a robe?

 

[waitasec]

Who is pretending? We are trying to understand even if metaphoricaly. You are disregarding it completely as being of any use. No matter what you say about it we will try to understand it because why not? Because you say so? Who are you to say what happens and doesnt happen? Who are you to say the worthe of anything? We have equal right to think but you are trying to tell us not to because its pointless. You will not win this fight.

certainly not you, you seem to be reasoning your way through this, besides i was not referring to you, i'm referring to our friend from down under

 

[it's_sam]

Ahh my mistake! Appoligies.

 

[dmgdnooc]

if this genesis story is FACT for you and you are happy with this explanation, fine, that is your choice. for me, i am not that easily persuadable...i have to know in my heart of hearts this is true and not just believe in it because of it's face value...
i can't help but ask question about something i regard as a silly belief.
why does an all powerful god need our faith? is it that insecure? the god in your bible seems more like a tyrant than a loving god that believers portray it to be...oh ya, he sacrificed his only son... and he's coming back...all because adam and eve ate the forbidden fruit... the entrapment the god in your bible ultimately set up, supposedly...nice.

...this was started up by a people that were oppressed and needed to believe in something that would give them strength to live through their oppression...then the christians ran with it and then the mormons and the the jehovahs witness...

and in your genius you said what i have been trying to say...the gobbldy gook tree
you cannot KNOW what good and EVIL means just by words alone, god said this is good this is bad...but what does that mean? they have to UNDERSTAND IT through experience WE all do. why was the tree there in the 1st place if they knew what good and evil meant?

were you there? why say this is a FACT....it is your faith, you cannot prove faith...this is not fact because common sense/reason and logic says so
it your CHOICE to take this at face value

Eve is in a different case. She was deceived.
But she was not deceived by misunderstanding the idea of evil.

again how do you know all this? are you reading into this because of your faith?

as far as eve is concerned, according to you she was deceived and therefore
subjected to men.... NICE[/quote]

God does not need our faith, He is self-sufficient
God is not insecure, there is nothing that could shake Him.
God may appear as a tyrant to those who hear 'if you eat then I will kill you' when the words on the page are actually 'if you eat you will die'.
It takes an attitude of mind to hear the words of the scriptures just as they are on the page.
　
I understand the tree was in the garden for them to partake of it in due course. To partake by invitation not by theft.
Your understanding is that it was there to trap them.
You see, it is an attitude of mind.
　
The Edenic episode (the 1st 11 chapters of Genesis actually) have clearly recognisable Mesopotamian motifs recurring throughout.
The story was not 'started up' in Egypt or the wilderness but came with Abraham's household when he came out of Ur.
It, or parts of it, were from the stories that the household told around their campfires and had been telling long before Abraham had left Mesopotamia.
So it could not have been 'to give them strength to live through their oppression' as you say.
　
If a virgin can know what the word 'marriage' means then they could know what the word 'evil' means in exactly the same way.
The understanding must, of necessity, be incomplete but it is not the state of total ignorance that you argue for.
　
There were 2 trees in the garden that were forbidden to the Edenic pair.
Both were to be eaten of, in due course and by invitation.
The eating of both trees would make them like, in state and nature, as the resurrected Jesus is depicted later in the Bible.
　
Jesus knew what good and evil are, yet he had no knowledge of doing an evil thing.
He never did evil, as you and I and Adam have done, yet, from the scriptures, I deduce his 'knowledge of evil' was greater than any other person's.
There is a way, scripturally, to acquire 'knowledge of evil' that does not involve the sin of Adam.
So it is not that theft was the only way to acquire the knowledge, it was merely one of the options open to them. And it should be noted, not the best option.
　
I say it is a scriptural fact that they understood the idea of evil and were aware of the consequences of eating.
I say so because the ideas that I have reasoned on this are in the scriptures.
You say that they did not understand the words spoken to them and that they were without reason; both these things are contrary to the internals of the story.
From what base, other than the story, can reasoning on the story proceed?
　
I cannot prove faith and I cannot prove the literality of the story.
What I can do is read the story and ensure that my reasoning on the story is based on the actual words that are there.
　
Paul said that Eve was 'deceived', as I mentioned in the previous post.
I did not read it into the story, Eve said to God 'The serpent beguiled me' in Gen 3.13.
She was deceived by the serpent, not by a lack of understanding.
　
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/biblical-debates/97932-male-chaubinism-bible.html
I have said something about my understanding of the 'subjection' of women in this thread.
You may be interested in reading or resurrecting it.