Adam and Eve

[Woland]

Hello everyone,

Just a few questions I've had for a while.
I would really appreciate some literalist input on this, but if "liberals" (generic sense) know what sort of theological answers various sorts of literalists would typically give to these questions, please write them down if you are able and willing.

1. Were Adam and Eve created with "free will"?
2. Did they initially have knowledge of good and evil?
3. Is it "evil" to disobey God?
4. Assuming that any transgression against God is (the definition of?) "evil", how is it meaningful to say that Adam and Eve transgressed against God to the point where perfect justice and love entails that billions of people must suffer - some extremely - and perhaps even be tortured eternally (or extensively), as they ate the forbidden fruit when they didn't have knowledge of good and evil in the first place?
5. Is Satan more powerful, knowledgeable and cunning than the first humans?
6. What does "free will" mean? Is it correct to say that it is something like "the proposition that you can make a (somehow differently than if you're lacking it) meaningful choice between good and evil"?

Any kind of answer/speculation will do just fine for this thread.
Biblical references would be great, but are not required.

The debate (more like discussion) element of this thread will consist in the dialog which will be enabled by the various answers to these questions which I hope I will get.

I'd like this thread to remain in the TDD forum because of the discussion format I have in mind, but if a moderator believes its place is elsewhere I don't have any serious issues with its being moved.

Thank you.

-Woland

[Goat]

We are apparently looking at this from completely different points of view. God does not know you would go all in from observation of your thoughts. He knew you would go all in before the universe was created, long before you ever thought anything.

And granting that, it still can be the case that what god 'knew' before the universe was created has nothing to do with me not having a choice in real terms.

Let's try another view.

Assume I become godlike and possess only the attribute of omniscience. I can't create anything, I can't be in all places at all times - I only have your concept of perfect knowledge. Again, by the very definition of omniscience, all that means is that I know the outcome of every single exercise of free will, when stars will supernova, how the universe came into existence, whether the Mavs will beat that whiny little biyatch LeBron tomorrow night....

So what? Nothing about omniscience requires the immutability of decisions. It just states that the ultimate decision is known to me. There is no sense in this, regardless of how 'perfect' the knowledge is, that free will is sacrificed - not under the strict definition of omniscience.

It seems you are ascribing some consequence or attribute of omniscience that does not logically fit there. Is there some extra attribute, like omipotence, that comes into play here?

I'm not sure what I'm missing.

I'm not sure what you are missing either, but I have run into this before, usually with Christians. It must be something in the hard-wiring of the brain.

Or perhaps I am missing something in my explanation, something so obvious to me that I don't even realize it is missing.

The essential attribute I am ascribing to omniscience is that God does not predict, guess, or observe. He KNOWS with absolute certainty what will happen, an eternity in advance. In that sense, your future is absolutely predetermined as it exists in God's knowledge of it. No human choice can change what God already knows to be the outcome of that choice.

Goat has said that God's omnipotence is a necessary ingredient, but I think even that is not necessary. It is not necessary to the logic that God be either omnipotent or the creator himself, only that he have perfect knowledge of it.

I know I am repeating myself here. I believe what is missing must be a difference in our understanding of the meaning and implications of omniscience, but I can't pinpoint the difference at this time. God's omniscience means that the future is, in effect, absolutely predetermined. I hope someone else will jump in here and explain it better than I can.

John

Actually, I said that in addition to his perfect knowledge, he has absolute power, AND he is the creator.

Now, compatiblist would say 'free will is compatible with determination'.. a point i know you disagree with. That is why I threw in the 'God is also all powerful and the creator'. The Christian concept of God has God setting the entire thing in motion to begin with.. and therefore is the 'ultimate' when it comes to the start of determination.

The differences between compatablists and noncompatilbists when it comes to free will made me come to the conclusion the concept of free will is null and void to begin with.

[Wootah]

6. What does "free will" mean? Is it correct to say that it is something like "the proposition that you can make a (somehow differently than if you're lacking it) meaningful choice between good and evil"?

I'm not certain what you are asking. I know that many people claim that we don't have free will because no matter how much we "choose' to, we can't flap our arms hard enough to fly.

That about flapping your arms may be true enough, but that is not the technical logical objection to the doctrine of free will.

If God is omniscient, perfectly all-knowing, then he knew long before he created Adam and Eve about every detail of every action that would occur in the Garden of Eden. He knew before he created them that they would eat the Forbidden Fruit, he knew that the serpent would sneak into the Garden, he knew every word the serpent would speak, he knew every choice Adam and Eve would make, etc, etc.

Since God's knowledge of everything, including every detail of the future, is absolute and perfect, there is nothing Adam and Eve could have done to change their future, no choice they could make that God did not already know, because God had perfect knowledge of every detail of the choices they would make an eternity in advance.

Do you deny this? If so, you deny the doctrine that God is omniscient, and we can't have that, can we?

John

John can you give me one example of knowing something meaning causing it? How does knowing cause or deny free will?

[Wootah]

The more salient argument against free will in this thread again is the fact that Yahweh punished his creation for making a decision that required the knowledge of good and evil PRIOR to embuing them with that knowledge.

It's akin to applying the death penalty on Monday for the crime of fishing with hand grenades but not declaring it a crime until Tuesday. I think we might rightly call 'no fair', don't you?

I presume that Adam & Eve knew that 'they would surely die' was a bad thing when God told them that. It's easy to agree with this otherwise God would have told them language and other things but he didn't and yet spoke to them. They therefore were created with a lot of knowledge.

I think the lesson in hindsight from the tree of k of g and e is that we knew what was good but did not need to experience what was evil.

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the lesson in hindsight from the tree of k of g and e is that we knew what was good but did not need to experience what was evil.

Although a literal tree, God effectively pointed at one tree (among many) and said "don't touch that one". He did this to test their obedience. The lives and happiness not just of Adam and Eve but all their decendants, depended on their willingness to obey their maker. That tree thus became "symbolic" of the recognition that God is the one that gets to say ultimately what is "good" and what is "bad"

It's very similar to how people regard the flag of their nation. There is nothing *special* about material attatched to a pole in itself, but it represents for many their recognition of their government and the laws imposed by it.

In a similar way, the tree symbolized "national" sovereignty. Eating from the tree can be likened to burning the flag, a deliberate public sign that they no longer recognise the authority of the ruling power.

Further reading (audio text)

[Strider324]

The more salient argument against free will in this thread again is the fact that Yahweh punished his creation for making a decision that required the knowledge of good and evil PRIOR to embuing them with that knowledge.

It's akin to applying the death penalty on Monday for the crime of fishing with hand grenades but not declaring it a crime until Tuesday. I think we might rightly call 'no fair', don't you?

I presume that Adam & Eve knew that 'they would surely die' was a bad thing when God told them that.

Not if they possessed the innocence - and ignorance - similar to a 2 or even 6 year old.

It's easy to agree with this otherwise God would have told them language and other things but he didn't and yet spoke to them. They therefore were created with a lot of knowledge.

I agree the text implies knowledge of language. But clearly not the knowledge of Good and Evil, which is a prerequisite to making moral decisions. God didn't place a tree of Language, or Math, or Poker in the garden. He specifically (and inexplicably) placed the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil - and then prohibited access to this most critical knowledge; the only knowledge that could tell them what the consequences of disobedience would be, and allow them to act as moral agents with free will.

BTW, what kind of Father would keep this knowledge from their children?? Would you? And if your children committed an evil act, on what possible basis could you hold them accountable?

I think the lesson in hindsight from the tree of k of g and e is that we knew what was good but did not need to experience what was evil.

It wasn't the Tree of Knowledge of Evil though, was it? It was the knowledge of GOOD AND EVIL. The clear meaning of the plain reading of the text is that prior to eating this forbidden fruit, Man had NO knowledge of G&E. And so the ethical question still stands as to what justification a god would have for punishing Man for a disobedience PRIOR to Man having the knowledge of what obedience meant - and then imposing the grotesquely extreme penalty of damning ALL of mankind - forever. This is no different than charging a toddler with larceny for taking a nickel from someone at Chucky Cheese...when she has no idea what larceny is - and then punishing her by locking her in the basement for....ever.

Could you ever justify punishing your child in this way?

[Woland]

I think the lesson in hindsight from the tree of k of g and e is that we knew what was good but did not need to experience what was evil.

Although a literal tree, God effectively pointed at one tree (among many) and said "don't touch that one". He did this to test their obedience. The lives and happiness not just of Adam and Eve but all their decendants, depended on their willingness to obey their maker.

Where were they made aware of this?

How can they meaningfully be held guilty if they didn't know what evil was in the first place?

Why torture countless people/children/babies by inflicting tornados, earthquakes, viruses etc. on them just because their ancestors disobeyed God when they were deceived by a powerful supernatural entity AND they didn't know what good and evil was? Was God powerless to stop this carnage?

Why let people who would otherwise have been innocents suffer?
Why impose indiscriminate suffering (which would ultimately cause a VAST number of them to die at birth along with their mothers) upon them?

Why make childbirth - the act of giving life - painful?

How is any of this remotely compatible with the word "loving" as humans use it when they're not special pleading for their deity to be excused from having to act consistently with our usage of the word?

It's very similar to how people regard the flag of their nation. There is nothing *special* about material attatched to a pole in itself, but it represents for many their recognition of their government and the laws imposed by it.

In a similar way, the tree symbolized "national" sovereignty. Eating from the tree can be likened to burning the flag, a deliberate public sign that they no longer recognise the authority of the ruling power.

Find me one example where you think that burning a flag justifies death, torture and holding descendants guilty to the point of death and torture.

I'll be waiting.

Finally, what would you do if your children (with infinitely less knowledge and discernment than you) disobeyed you by doing something you told them you *really* didn't want them to do? Torture and death for them and their descendants? No?

-Woland

[Woland]

Hello Hobbes and Dianaiad,

I would appreciate it if you could try to answer the (admittedly numerous, yet designed to be answered easily) questions I left for you on the first page of the thread. The reason for all these questions is that I don't want to attack a strawman, but instead discuss the theological views which YOU present here (whether or not they are yours). Makes sense?

There are so many different takes on this issue.
Please help the discussion move along if you're interested in continuing it.

Thanks

-Woland

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the lesson in hindsight from the tree of k of g and e is that we knew what was good but did not need to experience what was evil.

Although a literal tree, God effectively pointed at one tree (among many) and said "don't touch that one". He did this to test their obedience. The lives and happiness not just of Adam and Eve but all their decendants, depended on their willingness to obey their maker.

Where were they made aware of this?

How can they meaningfully be held guilty if they didn't know what evil was in the first place?

They were told "don't eat it - because I'm telling you not to eat it - and if you eat it the penelty is death".

Obviously then they understood that ... good= don't touch and evil=touch

They were made aware of what good and evil was therefore, when they were informed that of the law.How could God blame Adam and Eve for breaking his law when they had absolutely no concept of punishment or even crime?

Even a child of three can grasp the concept of "do not touch!". Adam and Eve were neither children nor were they mentally incompetent. They were more than capable of grasping the concept of "law and punishment" since it had been explained to them in clear and simple terms of "cause and effect". They were well able to grasp the notion of "cause and effect" since they lived in the material world were heat resulted in warmth, blows resulted in pain and eating resulted in a feeling of satisfaction and fullness". They were therefore capable of fully grasping that breaking this law would *cause* punishment. A clear explicit law was obviously comprehenisble to their perfect minds.

Did they comprehend the notion of death as punishment?

Adam and Eve had seen and could comprehend what death was since they had seen animals die, decompose and be reduced to "dust". God had clearly explained that should they touch the forbidden fruit THAT (death) would be the punishment. Further God explained what that would "feel like" indicating they would "return" to a state of inexistence comparable to before they were created. There is no reason they could not grasp what the death penelty meant. None of us, even today, know what it feels like to die but we don't have to be put in an electric chair and have 50,000 volts put through us to know we don't want it and respect the laws that could result in such a punishment (or move out of Texas, which ever we feel most inclined to do).

Gullible, Stupid or Wicked?

The bible does in fact speak of Eve being "deceived". This does not mean that she was incapable of grasping what she was expected to do, but that she figured that there were advantages to be had in breaking what she knew was a law. To illustrate: A bank robber may KNOW and UNDERSTAND the law but may figure that robbing a bank will procure him advantages that are worth the risk. Whether Eve figured she could somehow, like the bank robber, avoid punishment or that living the high life would be worth her eventual end we cannot say. But what we can say is by repeating the law verbatum before she broke it, she understood the issues involved and what she was doing.

Adam on the other hand is held entirely and solely responsible for his actions. There is no indication he didn't understand what he was doing but chose to throw his fate in with his wife. Since this single act guaranteed the death of any future children he had it was indeed a wicked act of selfishness. If a pregnant woman that smokes, knowing what it will do to her unborn child, "because she wants to" is viewed as selfish and stupid, what of parents that, fully informed and aware a single act would mean their children would be born with an incurable illness, go ahead. Most would deemed such an open declaration of open rebellion both wicked and selfish. Adam and Eve both justifiably punished as they had been forwarned they would be.

Why let people who would otherwise have been innocents suffer? -Woland

#QUESTION: Why is God punishing US for Adam's sin?

It would be more accurate to say we are suffering the "consequences" of their action rather than we are being punished. When we say 'punish' the emphasis is on the action of the punishER. God is not punishing us for the actions of Adam and Eve, he punished them and their children would be effected by THEIR punsihment.

To illustrate: If a father is irresponisble and crashes the car, the whole family, including any children that weren't even alive when it happened, suffer. The family may go for years without a car, the children may have to walk to school, worse someone may have been injured and suffer permient pain

In a similar way, humans a suffering the consequences of our first parents "crashing the family car". Adam and Eve lost our original paradise home and incurred physical, emotional and spiritual damage that every human that subsequently came would suffer in one way or another. The only way to avoid that is ... to not be born human. And the only way to avoid passing on the effects of their error is to not have children.

The plan was that we all descended from on couple, so we would ultimately be 'family'. A great plan until the parents of that family deliberately did something that meant that all their children would be born "defective". Not our fault but our problem nonetheless.


#QUESTION Why did God increase Eve's labour pains?

“I shall greatly increase the pain of your pregnancy; in birth pangs you will bring forth children.�—Ge 3:16.

Often in the bible, what God PERMITS is spoken of as being done by him. The increase of pain for a woman at when she is giving birth is one of the sad consequences of humans no longer enjoying physical perfection. This is no more an indication of God being *cruel* than a surgeon telling a patient he will limp for the rest of his life due to a terrible injury. The surgeon can see, perhaps by taking an x-ray the damage and is simply predicting or reporting what he knows in through his medical knowledge will be the consequence.

#QUESTION Did Adam and Eve's sin really merit death?

The arguement that the punishment was excessive fails to take into account what the act represented for themselves and others.

Firstly, the "punishment" was no more than a statement of fact. Adam and Eve were not created to exist totally independent of their creator, like a computer plugged into a power supply, the act of unplugging results in the machine no longer functioning. Humans were not created immortal indestructable or with an independent self generated source of eternal life, there was an "invisible" lead connected to the source of their lives, GOD. The law existed then to give them a tangible opportunity to show their willingness to conform to God's authority, the unique opportunity to serve God out of love and the opportunity to decide on their own destiny.

Claiming the punishment was excessive is like claiming one small step doesn't merit plummeting 100 feet to your death. If that "small step" is of the edge of a high building though, the ensuing death is less a "punishment" than an eventuality. Having been informed of the danger, Adam and Eve merited the punishment. If the act was "very small" not doing it would have been correspondingly easy to obey. The fact is they were'n't just having lunch they were committing high treason.

Furthermore, Adam and Eve not only cut their own throats they condemned the Children that would inherit the imperfection and death they incurred. Like a Mother that takes a substance that she knows will kill her unborn child, both Adam and Eve in a single act deliberatetly caused the death of their offspring. In that they were more than reprehensible, they were evil.

[Woland]

Hello JehovasWitness,

Do you plan on addressing my questions about the collective punishment part?
EDIT: I see you've changed your reply, so I'll respond to that one later.

I think the lesson in hindsight from the tree of k of g and e is that we knew what was good but did not need to experience what was evil.

Although a literal tree, God effectively pointed at one tree (among many) and said "don't touch that one". He did this to test their obedience. The lives and happiness not just of Adam and Eve but all their decendants, depended on their willingness to obey their maker.

Where were they made aware of this?

How can they meaningfully be held guilty if they didn't know what evil was in the first place?

They were told "don't eat it - because I'm telling you not to eat it - and if you eat it the penelty is death".

Then they were not made aware of the real extent of the consequences of disobeying.
Not even close.

Obviously then they understood that ... good= don't touch and evil=touch

Obviously? According to the story, they did NOT have knowledge of good and evil.

Just like if you tell a child "don't press the little red button or else" and he ends up pressing it you aren't justified in torturing him and his descendants while simultaneously deserving the title "loving", I contend that the deity depicted in the tales is absurdly malevolent, incompetent, negligent, and reprehensible.

They were made aware of what good and evil was therefore, when they were informed that of the law.

Even IF I granted you this point (which I don't see why I would except to have fun further down the line), you'd still be left with an incredibly callous deity who punishes his creation by torturing it and its descendants (entirely unnecessary), making childbirth painful, diseases, iniquity, deaths at birth, etc.

#QUESTION: why didn't God want Adam and Ave to have knowledge of good and evil?

It wasn't about "knowing" in the sense of having information, it was about DECIDING.

God had already given Adam and Eve knowledge. They knew things. They knew that eating from the tree was "evil" and not eating from the tree was "good".

As a child "knows" that pressing the little red buttong is "bad".

Do you deny that "God" had infinitely more knowledge and discernment than Adam and Eve did?

Are the "parent-child" analogies only to be used when the Christian finds them convenient?

They knew the difference between good (not eating) and evil (eating) and they knew they would be punished if they ate (did evil). But who decided what was "good" or "evil"? Wasn't it God? There is nothing wrong about knowing the difference in fact God EXPLAINED the difference to them.

God asked for their complete obediance on this issue. If they obeyed it would prove they respected that their Creator had the RIGHT to tell them what to do. It was a matter of "who makes the rules around here"; in short it was a question of RULERSHIP.

Let us be glad that humans tend to be infinitely more loving and compassionate parents than this god figure in these ancient tales.

-Woland

[Woland]

Why let people who would otherwise have been innocents suffer? -Woland

#QUESTION: Why is God punishing US for Adam's sin?

Please answer the question as formulated.
Is God bound by his nature to let all these people suffer and die because their ancestors "sinned"?

Does he not have dominion over everything? Who made the rules? Who put the tree there? Who designed the tree?

Where do the consequences of eating it come from?
Do they have to be so violent and torturous?
Do they have to be formulated in a way that ultimately ends up hurting countless sentient beings for no other crime than being born?

If you had the power to effortlessly intervene and instantly save countless billions from suffering and death, wouldn't you?

If you didn't, would anyone call you "loving"?

Let me take a shot at another one of your false analogies (there are other ones sprinkled in there) to show how irrelevant they are.

This is no more an indication of God being *cruel* than a surgeon telling a patient he will limp for the rest of his life due to a terrible injury.

Does the surgeon have the power to instantaneously fix the patient?

Q.E.D.

Is there another false analogy which you want debunked?

-Woland

P.S.: I find it interesting that you take "I shall increase pain etc." to mean "I shall let that happen to you". Seems like Olympic mental gymnastics to me ala "the Bible doesn't mean what it says, but only when I say so". At any rate, it doesn't change anything to the fundamental flaws in your arguments.