One could know there is the ordained will of God but that means your subject to living by faith in a subjective state of mind. It does not make robots because knowing there is an ordained will does not mean I know what that will is. Therefore admit powerlessness or act defiant. If God ordained all things where is the fear that I cannot move out of my life choices?I do not know what God has chosen for an ordained life so can I pray in fear of acceptance needed to live in His conformity.?
They did not understand death never seeing it.They knew not good knowledge or evil simultaneously. However they knew command not to eat though powerless to know result. They knew not evil but did know good.Every tree of the garden was good and they were told such.But free will they did not command but Eve acted out of her design. She was made to be a helper and thought eating would assist in further righteousneess being deceived. But Adam ate in clarity in awe of God's next plan.
if you ever took the time ever studied it you would understand. There was also some others involved with this problem. if we had freewill God would not have to send his Son to die for our sins. Also the is The Devil that is involved lucifer. you better start listening. but first you have to get saved.
No such thing as freewill never has been. God commanded the man. he had whole garden of Trees to eat fromGen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. But God specifically said do not eat of the Tree of knowledge of Good and evil in the day that you do you will surely die.
Great points. I like looking at the ridiculousness of these old myths too. You didn't mention the part where Adams blames Eve for the "sin" of eating the apple and she is therefore cursed with pain in childbearing. What a crock of crap. That part of the story has caused women eons of needless suffering.
@RhondaH Adam died dam died spiritually then he died physically. Adam walked with God in the Garden but sin seperated him from god. Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. Adam lived until 930 years old. if he never sinned he would still be alive.
@dougbear2004 You actually quoted your story book and think I or anyone with an once of reason would put any credence in it? It is a re-written fairy tale. You have obviously not done any research into where all those stories came from. You'd be amazed at their true origins. Lots of work ahead of you and then you can join the rational and reasoned humans among you.
@RhondaH For onething its not an apple and anotherthing the suffering is not on only women . Sin affects God's creation.
what did God command the man? Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: he commanded him he may eat of all the Trees of the Garden. what is a command. that is not freewill.
@RhondaH Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. but the Tree of knowledge of Good and evil , thou shalt not eat of eat it. is this not warning, because in the day you eat of it you WILL SURELY DIE. There was no death in the garden.
what is this Adam blames Eve. Eve is the only one cursed. lol Eve did not lie . why dont read Where lied about lest ye touch it.
@RhondaH Eve was decieved by satan(The serpent). women act the Curse cause them needless Man has also the punished for the curse too.Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Because Adam listened to his wife for he ate from the Tree of Kbnowledge of Good and evil
@RhondaH Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; God commanded the man told him not to eat from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and because he listened to his wife God cursed the Ground for adam sake he shall eat all the days of his life.
@RhondaH Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; Remeber God Commanded he could eat of all the Trees of the Garden NoW man has to work for a living Rhonda to provide for his family. Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. in sweat of his face he shall eat bread .
Oh one of my favories the Adam and Eve, god, and the talking snake story... I've heard this one before, but I thought you did a nice job of presenting it... Only you left out the part about god telling Adam that if he partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he would surily die that same day... So Adam must have thought the talking snakes words were more creditable than gods... And the talking snake was right because god had been lying about Adam dying...
@TheWildAssCopyCat Snake story? that serpent was the devil, satan..Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: he decieved The Woman.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, THAT OLD SERPENT THE DEVIL, SATAN. THAT SERPENT THAT TOLD HER YOU WOULD NOT SURELY DIE JUST LIKE HE DECIEVES PEOPLE TODAY .
Just had another look at the vid but don't see anything in there about God's foreknowledge - happy to have that debate but I don't see it raised in the vid - have I missed it?
I'm not really sure what your point is - they clearly acquired some different type of knowledge after. What does it matter if - as you argue and I deny - they did not know right and wrong before?
Your clip goes on about the being mindless automatons' etc. I think I have refuted that. What remains?
No, you've missed nothing. I meant only that that was the original impetus for the vid - it then splintered into this one, and the sadist vid. This one focusing on the freewill side of that argument, the other focusing on the omniscience. Sorry for the confusion.
I found it interesting that even when not coupled, both of those concepts have their own issues. And when combined it gets especially muddy (though that particular problem is able to be solved).
The reason it would matter if they had this knowledge before hand, is that much of the rest of the book is dependent on them having made a 'choice'. Without the knowledge, it could hardly be said that a choice was made. What is a choice between red and green if one is colorblind? It begs the questions of whether or not this god is a truly benevolent, just or even rational being.
There isn't much left, I agree. I have enjoyed the debate, regardless.
sorry - one last point re your point on choice. That was my point (lots of points here!) on the real issue you are trying to prove is that the choice/action (call it what you like) at the Fall was blameless. Because if it was not blameless you could argue that God was not benevolent (a whole other debate). If it is blameworthy then God is just. Hopefully I showed it was blameworthy.
Ockam does not tell you to discard necessary logical conclusions. Again, internally the Bible is consistent altho you argue this is ex post facto - I say the timing of the writing does not mean that it had not always been true. In any event, the point is that the conduct is blameworthy (I think this is the point you are really trying to disprove) cos they new everything they needed to about God and were not deceived. And that is the root of it.
But my logical conclusion was that if they had not yet received knowledge from the tree, that they did not yet have knowledge. I don't find that to be a stretch at all. This is what Genesis tells us.
I believe the timing (of the writing) is significant in that quite a bit later, a different author tacked on the bit about - 'by the way, everybody has known god's attributes since creation'.
That is the extraneous part in my opinion, and it contradicts what we're told in Genesis which did not include such a statement. Now obviously one that views the bible as inerrant will not be able to view it this way, but I have to think one would come away conflicted about which part is actually correct, as they can't both be.
I'm curious about the "this is the point you are really trying to disprove" bit. You made a similar comment earlier about my 'real' motives. I thought my presentation was fairly straight forward. It stemmed largely from a debate about the apparent problem of man's freewill when coupled with god's omniscience.
The specific Adam's apple thing was secondary - merely an example, it just gained momentum as the video sketch progressed ('omniscient sadist' was largely about the same thing). I'm not really concerned with the guilt or innocence of 'Adam', in that I view it as a fictional tale. Hopefully that clears things a bit.
I think the fallen nature of our humanity when contrasted with the natural beauty of the earth speaks volumes on Gods goodness and power, and mans evil (which hopefully Ive shown in the Bible can not be blamed on God). Cant access the link you posted so not commenting.
We are to believe that Adam started off with some sort of innate knowledge of good/evil,
but not 'full' knowledge of good/evil - having not yet eaten of the tree (which leaves me infinitely curious as to what knowledge he gained when he ate it that he didn't already have, and why this was considered evil, but I digress...),
and to what degree he did have it is left to speculation of the reader,
but at base, it was supposedly just enough to know that god was a good being,
and therefore the eating of the fruit was 'evil', god having commanded he not eat of it (actually it wasn't so much that it was evil, more that Adam would 'surely die')
all this because the line in Romans says that if one simply looks around, they'll know god's qualities.
You certainly have some faith there, I'll give you that!
My mind (and Ockham's razor) takes me down a much simpler path;
They hadn't eaten of the tree, so they didn't yet have the knowledge.
Anything else in the bible contradicting this, is inconsistent. It feels very much like a 'patch' to rectify the problem in Genesis, esp. it having been written so much later.
The link wasn't terribly important (though I despise youtube's blocking of links!). It shows several examples of things in nature that are poorly 'designed'. An interesting read, but only tangentially related to the original discussion. i.e. - "if one looks around" they will actually see many examples of systems that work very poorly, vestigial organs, wasteful function, etc. I've placed the link in the description just for kicks.
Since we are (I think) debating the internal consistency of the Bible, the premise of the debate must be that the Bible is true (even if you dont actually think so, to have the debate you must proceed on that basis whether the Bible account is true is a different debate). So its not that I think that Adam looked around and understood - Romans 1 says so. Your quote is correct although arguably you could start a verse or two back of that.
clearly not in the sense that they had it after the Fall. but Adam (at least) knew enough _about_ right and wrong that he knew his actions were sin. the point of your vid was that their choice was completely random and uninformed and presumably your real point - blameless. The Bible clearly contradicts this -Adam was not deceived - he knew God was good, he knew the command, he knew it was wrong to disobey and still went ahead.
"Adam (at least) knew enough _about_ right and wrong that he knew his actions were sin"
Again I ask if there is scripture that tells you this, or are you simply assuming?
"The Bible clearly contradicts this...he knew God was good"
Not to be terribly redundant, but where exactly does the bible say this? Where does it indicate that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong - to any degree - before they ate of the tree of knowledge?
*side note - your civility has been appreciated, it is rare indeed.
my conclusions are drawn from Romans 1 - where it states that God's attributes have been known by man since creation - so therefore Adam nows that God is good. He also knows He is loving, all powerful etc. He knows this being has given a command. He is not deceived about the nature of his action.
That feels like quite a stretch. I believe you're referring to 'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.'
You seem to be saying that because Adam 'looked around', that he was made innately aware of god's nature. I can assure you this isn't the case for many a man (myself included), and I have no reason to believe it was so for him.
Take; "being understood through the things that are made".
This is apparently the only way Adam would have had knowledge of god's nature. From this, I should be able to look at say, a rock or a tree and know that god is omnibenevolent? How would one take that away from viewing anything in nature?
Quite the contrary, if I were to envision a god that created all that I see in nature, I would come away with a barbaric, wasteful deity that frankly, wasn't very good at making things.
Not for an 'omni-' sort anyway. (a handful of examples of less than optimal 'design' here; freewebs(DOT)com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm)
No, I can't say that I'd agree that if Adam simply looked around, that he would have grasped the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity at all.
It's a shame god didn't decide to just put that bit right in Genesis to clarify things, and instead include it in a single (open to interpretation) sentence some 50-60 years later in Romans (I think that's about right).
So Adam has sufficient faculty (understanding of right and wrong) for him not to be deceived (even Eve has enough for her to have to be deceived) both know its in direct contradiction of a command of a God they know to be good and loving and yet they choose to do it. Not sure how that ends up being random?
He was acting in direct contradiction of an express command of the pure and good God. You say they could not know God was good but see Romans 1.18ff men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse
The point on intellect was merely to address your charge of them being mindless clearly they started of with a mind sufficient enough o govern the world. Not equating intellect with morality but as you point out that is a different discussion.
Eve deceived; Adam not - and the sin is always attributed to Adam. The fact that he was not deceived means he had sufficient understanding of the fact that what he was doing was wrong.
"...given them the intellect they needed to govern the world"
Interesting that you equate intellect with a concept of good and evil, but not really relevant here.
First, perhaps you could show me where in the following passage it was indicated, or even implied, that Adam and/or Eve had a concept of good and evil?;
"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then God said "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground
"it was enough for them to know that evil is disobedience to God"
Again, how do you deduce that they simply 'knew' this, when it isn't stated in the bible? Quite the opposite, it states they only obtained this knowledge after they ate of the tree.
'1 Tim 2.14. ie he knew he was sinning."
Followed immediately by "it was the woman who was deceived". Clearly showing that there was indeed deception involved.
One could know there is the ordained will of God but that means your subject to living by faith in a subjective state of mind. It does not make robots because knowing there is an ordained will does not mean I know what that will is. Therefore admit powerlessness or act defiant. If God ordained all things where is the fear that I cannot move out of my life choices?I do not know what God has chosen for an ordained life so can I pray in fear of acceptance needed to live in His conformity.?
polopowers1 6 months ago
They did not understand death never seeing it.They knew not good knowledge or evil simultaneously. However they knew command not to eat though powerless to know result. They knew not evil but did know good.Every tree of the garden was good and they were told such.But free will they did not command but Eve acted out of her design. She was made to be a helper and thought eating would assist in further righteousneess being deceived. But Adam ate in clarity in awe of God's next plan.
polopowers1 6 months ago
if you ever took the time ever studied it you would understand. There was also some others involved with this problem. if we had freewill God would not have to send his Son to die for our sins. Also the is The Devil that is involved lucifer. you better start listening. but first you have to get saved.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
No such thing as freewill never has been. God commanded the man. he had whole garden of Trees to eat fromGen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. But God specifically said do not eat of the Tree of knowledge of Good and evil in the day that you do you will surely die.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
Great points. I like looking at the ridiculousness of these old myths too. You didn't mention the part where Adams blames Eve for the "sin" of eating the apple and she is therefore cursed with pain in childbearing. What a crock of crap. That part of the story has caused women eons of needless suffering.
RhondaH 1 year ago
@RhondaH Indeed. Nothing has robbed women of their freedom, self worth and dignity and yes even health, quite like religion has.
godlesswonder 1 year ago
@RhondaH Adam died dam died spiritually then he died physically. Adam walked with God in the Garden but sin seperated him from god. Gen 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. Adam lived until 930 years old. if he never sinned he would still be alive.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
@dougbear2004 You actually quoted your story book and think I or anyone with an once of reason would put any credence in it? It is a re-written fairy tale. You have obviously not done any research into where all those stories came from. You'd be amazed at their true origins. Lots of work ahead of you and then you can join the rational and reasoned humans among you.
RhondaH 1 year ago
@RhondaH For onething its not an apple and anotherthing the suffering is not on only women . Sin affects God's creation.
what did God command the man? Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: he commanded him he may eat of all the Trees of the Garden. what is a command. that is not freewill.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
@RhondaH Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. but the Tree of knowledge of Good and evil , thou shalt not eat of eat it. is this not warning, because in the day you eat of it you WILL SURELY DIE. There was no death in the garden.
what is this Adam blames Eve. Eve is the only one cursed. lol Eve did not lie . why dont read Where lied about lest ye touch it.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
@RhondaH Eve was decieved by satan(The serpent). women act the Curse cause them needless Man has also the punished for the curse too.Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; Because Adam listened to his wife for he ate from the Tree of Kbnowledge of Good and evil
dougbear2004 1 year ago
@RhondaH Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life; God commanded the man told him not to eat from the tree of Knowledge of good and evil and because he listened to his wife God cursed the Ground for adam sake he shall eat all the days of his life.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
@RhondaH Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; Remeber God Commanded he could eat of all the Trees of the Garden NoW man has to work for a living Rhonda to provide for his family. Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return. in sweat of his face he shall eat bread .
dougbear2004 1 year ago
@RhondaH you have robbed God.
dougbear2004 1 year ago
Hadn't thought of these points before! I look forward to sharing this with my Christian acquaintances the next time this comes up.
ReligiousFiction 2 years ago
Oh one of my favories the Adam and Eve, god, and the talking snake story... I've heard this one before, but I thought you did a nice job of presenting it... Only you left out the part about god telling Adam that if he partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil he would surily die that same day... So Adam must have thought the talking snakes words were more creditable than gods... And the talking snake was right because god had been lying about Adam dying...
^..^
TheWildAssCopyCat 2 years ago
Indeed, you're correct. That'd take a whole other video! :)
godlesswonder 2 years ago
@TheWildAssCopyCat Snake story? that serpent was the devil, satan..Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: he decieved The Woman.
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, THAT OLD SERPENT THE DEVIL, SATAN. THAT SERPENT THAT TOLD HER YOU WOULD NOT SURELY DIE JUST LIKE HE DECIEVES PEOPLE TODAY .
dougbear2004 1 year ago
A well argued and logical presentation on the biblical nonsense regarding freewill, especially as inferred by Christianity. Bravo!
sapiensape 2 years ago
Thanks very much - not one that gets many views here. I appreciate the comment.
godlesswonder 2 years ago
Just had another look at the vid but don't see anything in there about God's foreknowledge - happy to have that debate but I don't see it raised in the vid - have I missed it?
I'm not really sure what your point is - they clearly acquired some different type of knowledge after. What does it matter if - as you argue and I deny - they did not know right and wrong before?
Your clip goes on about the being mindless automatons' etc. I think I have refuted that. What remains?
superjamjar23 3 years ago
No, you've missed nothing. I meant only that that was the original impetus for the vid - it then splintered into this one, and the sadist vid. This one focusing on the freewill side of that argument, the other focusing on the omniscience. Sorry for the confusion.
I found it interesting that even when not coupled, both of those concepts have their own issues. And when combined it gets especially muddy (though that particular problem is able to be solved).
godlesswonder 3 years ago
The reason it would matter if they had this knowledge before hand, is that much of the rest of the book is dependent on them having made a 'choice'. Without the knowledge, it could hardly be said that a choice was made. What is a choice between red and green if one is colorblind? It begs the questions of whether or not this god is a truly benevolent, just or even rational being.
There isn't much left, I agree. I have enjoyed the debate, regardless.
peace
godlesswonder 3 years ago
enjoyable indeed. I will try make it to some of your other vids to address that issue.
cheers
superjamjar23 3 years ago
sorry - one last point re your point on choice. That was my point (lots of points here!) on the real issue you are trying to prove is that the choice/action (call it what you like) at the Fall was blameless. Because if it was not blameless you could argue that God was not benevolent (a whole other debate). If it is blameworthy then God is just. Hopefully I showed it was blameworthy.
Ok, enuff said now.
cheers.
superjamjar23 3 years ago
Ockam does not tell you to discard necessary logical conclusions. Again, internally the Bible is consistent altho you argue this is ex post facto - I say the timing of the writing does not mean that it had not always been true. In any event, the point is that the conduct is blameworthy (I think this is the point you are really trying to disprove) cos they new everything they needed to about God and were not deceived. And that is the root of it.
superjamjar23 3 years ago
"...to discard necessary logical conclusions"
But my logical conclusion was that if they had not yet received knowledge from the tree, that they did not yet have knowledge. I don't find that to be a stretch at all. This is what Genesis tells us.
I believe the timing (of the writing) is significant in that quite a bit later, a different author tacked on the bit about - 'by the way, everybody has known god's attributes since creation'.
cont.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
That is the extraneous part in my opinion, and it contradicts what we're told in Genesis which did not include such a statement. Now obviously one that views the bible as inerrant will not be able to view it this way, but I have to think one would come away conflicted about which part is actually correct, as they can't both be.
cont.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
I'm curious about the "this is the point you are really trying to disprove" bit. You made a similar comment earlier about my 'real' motives. I thought my presentation was fairly straight forward. It stemmed largely from a debate about the apparent problem of man's freewill when coupled with god's omniscience.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
The specific Adam's apple thing was secondary - merely an example, it just gained momentum as the video sketch progressed ('omniscient sadist' was largely about the same thing). I'm not really concerned with the guilt or innocence of 'Adam', in that I view it as a fictional tale. Hopefully that clears things a bit.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
I think the fallen nature of our humanity when contrasted with the natural beauty of the earth speaks volumes on Gods goodness and power, and mans evil (which hopefully Ive shown in the Bible can not be blamed on God). Cant access the link you posted so not commenting.
superjamjar23 3 years ago
Let me put it together if I may.
We are to believe that Adam started off with some sort of innate knowledge of good/evil,
but not 'full' knowledge of good/evil - having not yet eaten of the tree (which leaves me infinitely curious as to what knowledge he gained when he ate it that he didn't already have, and why this was considered evil, but I digress...),
cont.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
and to what degree he did have it is left to speculation of the reader,
but at base, it was supposedly just enough to know that god was a good being,
and therefore the eating of the fruit was 'evil', god having commanded he not eat of it (actually it wasn't so much that it was evil, more that Adam would 'surely die')
all this because the line in Romans says that if one simply looks around, they'll know god's qualities.
You certainly have some faith there, I'll give you that!
cont.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
My mind (and Ockham's razor) takes me down a much simpler path;
They hadn't eaten of the tree, so they didn't yet have the knowledge.
Anything else in the bible contradicting this, is inconsistent. It feels very much like a 'patch' to rectify the problem in Genesis, esp. it having been written so much later.
cont.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
The link wasn't terribly important (though I despise youtube's blocking of links!). It shows several examples of things in nature that are poorly 'designed'. An interesting read, but only tangentially related to the original discussion. i.e. - "if one looks around" they will actually see many examples of systems that work very poorly, vestigial organs, wasteful function, etc. I've placed the link in the description just for kicks.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
Since we are (I think) debating the internal consistency of the Bible, the premise of the debate must be that the Bible is true (even if you dont actually think so, to have the debate you must proceed on that basis whether the Bible account is true is a different debate). So its not that I think that Adam looked around and understood - Romans 1 says so. Your quote is correct although arguably you could start a verse or two back of that.
cont
superjamjar23 3 years ago
clearly not in the sense that they had it after the Fall. but Adam (at least) knew enough _about_ right and wrong that he knew his actions were sin. the point of your vid was that their choice was completely random and uninformed and presumably your real point - blameless. The Bible clearly contradicts this -Adam was not deceived - he knew God was good, he knew the command, he knew it was wrong to disobey and still went ahead.
superjamjar23 3 years ago
"Adam (at least) knew enough _about_ right and wrong that he knew his actions were sin"
Again I ask if there is scripture that tells you this, or are you simply assuming?
"The Bible clearly contradicts this...he knew God was good"
Not to be terribly redundant, but where exactly does the bible say this? Where does it indicate that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong - to any degree - before they ate of the tree of knowledge?
*side note - your civility has been appreciated, it is rare indeed.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
flattery will get you nowhere ;-)
my conclusions are drawn from Romans 1 - where it states that God's attributes have been known by man since creation - so therefore Adam nows that God is good. He also knows He is loving, all powerful etc. He knows this being has given a command. He is not deceived about the nature of his action.
superjamjar23 3 years ago
That feels like quite a stretch. I believe you're referring to 'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.'
You seem to be saying that because Adam 'looked around', that he was made innately aware of god's nature. I can assure you this isn't the case for many a man (myself included), and I have no reason to believe it was so for him.
cont
godlesswonder 3 years ago
Take; "being understood through the things that are made".
This is apparently the only way Adam would have had knowledge of god's nature. From this, I should be able to look at say, a rock or a tree and know that god is omnibenevolent? How would one take that away from viewing anything in nature?
Quite the contrary, if I were to envision a god that created all that I see in nature, I would come away with a barbaric, wasteful deity that frankly, wasn't very good at making things.
cont.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
Not for an 'omni-' sort anyway. (a handful of examples of less than optimal 'design' here; freewebs(DOT)com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm)
No, I can't say that I'd agree that if Adam simply looked around, that he would have grasped the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity at all.
It's a shame god didn't decide to just put that bit right in Genesis to clarify things, and instead include it in a single (open to interpretation) sentence some 50-60 years later in Romans (I think that's about right).
godlesswonder 3 years ago
So Adam has sufficient faculty (understanding of right and wrong) for him not to be deceived (even Eve has enough for her to have to be deceived) both know its in direct contradiction of a command of a God they know to be good and loving and yet they choose to do it. Not sure how that ends up being random?
superjamjar23 3 years ago
He was acting in direct contradiction of an express command of the pure and good God. You say they could not know God was good but see Romans 1.18ff men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse
cont
superjamjar23 3 years ago
The point on intellect was merely to address your charge of them being mindless clearly they started of with a mind sufficient enough o govern the world. Not equating intellect with morality but as you point out that is a different discussion.
Eve deceived; Adam not - and the sin is always attributed to Adam. The fact that he was not deceived means he had sufficient understanding of the fact that what he was doing was wrong.
cont
superjamjar23 3 years ago
and the result of the free choice they exercised was corruption and guilt - leading to shame....
So free choice, with the knowledge of what they were doing (not deceived)...
superjamjar23 3 years ago
"...given them the intellect they needed to govern the world"
Interesting that you equate intellect with a concept of good and evil, but not really relevant here.
First, perhaps you could show me where in the following passage it was indicated, or even implied, that Adam and/or Eve had a concept of good and evil?;
continued...
godlesswonder 3 years ago
"Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Then God said "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground
cont...
godlesswonder 3 years ago
everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food."
"They new what evil was since they new at least it was the opposite of good"
You deduce that they knew this from what passage exactly?
"hence the knowledge of good and evil"
Which they supposedly only aquired after they ate of the tree ("Then the eyes of both of them were opened")
cont...
godlesswonder 3 years ago
"it was enough for them to know that evil is disobedience to God"
Again, how do you deduce that they simply 'knew' this, when it isn't stated in the bible? Quite the opposite, it states they only obtained this knowledge after they ate of the tree.
'1 Tim 2.14. ie he knew he was sinning."
Followed immediately by "it was the woman who was deceived". Clearly showing that there was indeed deception involved.
godlesswonder 3 years ago
hm - nice try, except
God had clearly given them the intellect they needed to govern the world (having put Adam in charge of the garden and all in it)
They new what evil was since they new at least it was the opposite of good (hence the knowledge of good and evil)
it was enough for them to know that evil is disobedience to God -He commanded them not to eat from that tree,
They were not ignorantly deceived. The Bible states that Adam was not deceived - 1 Tim 2.14. ie he knew he was sinning.
superjamjar23 3 years ago
If God wanted the serpent to tempt Eve, why did he punish it for doing so? If God did not want the serpent to tempt Eve, why did he not intervene?
Aditinggi 4 years ago
Good point. I just subscribed to you! Keep em coming.
kitepilot 4 years ago
Good argument.
Netwriter 4 years ago
Ooops!
'propuse' should indeed be purpose! Late night typo. Thanks for the correction. ;)
godlesswonder 4 years ago