Is it Important to Have Knowledge of G&E?

[William]

Linked Topic: The Knowledge of Good and Evil

From the Thread Topic: Questions for those who believe in free will

Replying to The Tanager in post #132] Discussion between The Tanager and William:

All in all it appears to me to be that you believe "free" will is about moral considerations, which are built from human concepts [how the individual defines/accepts the definitions of nature] rather than the nature of nature [because nature is not bound by moral considerations.]
The definitions created this way bring about moral awareness which would otherwise be absent and are largely done through some supernatural authority outside of nature [because nature has no morals] and thus deities are created to compensate, and morals are forced into nature through that means.

I think free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator. Not all of nature is moral but I think humans are naturally so.

If that is the case and your thinking is correct, then we need to identify why "not all of nature is moral but humans are naturally moral" - I will create another thread on that question.

It appears to me that with the premise;

"Free will is primarily about moral considerations built from our human nature given to us by the Creator."

that free will therefore comes after the acquiring of KGE.

IF the premise is true THEN the story that humans acquired KGE through disobeying a command not to eat the fruit which is credited with giving humans such knowledge, must be false.

This because, in order to have "moral considerations" one has to have that "knowledge of good and evil", and thus IF The Creator built this knowledge into the nature of the human instrument [as a given] THEN there is no requirement for any "Forbidden fruit" to be the object/means through which KGE was obtained, as it was already implanted with the natural human condition by The Creator.

Q: Is the argument above logically sound?

[William]

Are you saying then that while it is good for Humans to have moral insight, the [alleged] omnipotent being knew that it would not be good for them?
The reason I ask, is because the OP is questioning this idea.

I am saying that the omnipotent being knew that giving humans free will provided them with the ability to love that they would not have otherwise and that having this ability was better than having moral perfection without it. So, while God knew bad would result, it was still better than the alternative.

So while it would be bad for them it would be better than the 'alternative' which was first created for them. Which is the point of the thread. The alternative was the default position of Adam [not having the necessary knowledge] and the argument is not about "free will" because plainly what use is free will without knowledge of good and evil [as per the OP].
The problem with the story is that it includes both the forbidden fruit tree and the Serpent - both of which were permitted in the garden so obviously the Creator-Entity required Adam to obtain his knowledge in a way which was indirect. [not the default setting]

The overly evil Human actions is only alleged by the story. Where is the supporting evidence?

I think history clearly shows the evil humans are capable of.

As to this specific passage, a case for its truth I would ultimately rest on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, the reliability of the New Testament writings in recording Jesus' teachings, and Jesus believing in the reliability of the Tanakh.

Here you are still only speaking of religious ides rather than any actual supported evidence which points to truth.

The way the bible tells it, Humans were leaning into participating [primarily] in the evil knowledge acquired from partaking of the forbidden fruit. Why would that be the case?

It's not. The fruit did not give Adam and Eve "evil knowledge." They decided for themselves what was good and evil and then ate the fruit. Then, from this action, they realized they were naked (which it would be foolish to believe means they only then realized they didn't have clothes on) and hid from God.

Nice try but too many holes in the explanation you give, Tanager.

There is no reason why a naked animal would 'realize' it was naked, especially if all other animals were also undressed.
Also to note, the God-Entity in the story makes a point of asking Adam "who told you that you were naked?" which itself clearly points to the idea that Adam was not aware he was 'without clothing' up to that event...

They experienced shame and guilt from eating the fruit.

Which is what the OP is investigating... the method used by the God-Entity of the story, in order to get them into a particular position whereby their knowledge could be manipulated through guilt and fear...and how that relates to the idea of Satan [The Accuser]. "Shame and Guilt" - self doubt, someone or thing entering into the natural and injecting an unnatural quality into it...see Post #111 in the thread "The Doctrine of Satan" for more evidence on this line of thought...that Christians Created The Image of Satan, and why they did so...

We can tell through human history that parenting methods which involve shaming and guilting the offspring produce rather creepy results. IF said parents do so because they believe that this is how The Creator also does it, THEN we need look not further for evidence as to how that came about, and the subsequent damage it causes to those under it's regime.

Obviously the entity called "God" in the story could have accompanied the pair into the world and showed them how to activate the good knowledge rather than remain aloof and critical and stormy about it.

The image of this being doesn't present an overly wholesome 'parent' figure in that regard. He seemed more interested in "teaching them a lesson they won't soon forget" by having them develop fear...not a good thing to be having when leaning toward evil...

Perhaps it was worthwhile as a means of seeing what would happen...studying the results as it were. Certainly the whole creation story comes across as some advanced terraforming exercise by sentient [and highly scientific] beings. So that could answer the 'why watch and observe' question.

No, the text shows God coming to them, caring for them (which includes rightful consequences for their actions), continuing to pursue them. God tenderly talks to Cain, pursuing him and still having mercy on him once Cain ignores his advice. Then the text goes into broader summary mode but still shows humans walking with God (Enoch in Gen. 5:25, Noah). Even 6:3 speaks to how God has been contending with humans for righteousness, without forcing it upon them.

Christianity has not kept up with scientific discovery.

IF Jesus is in the position Christians claim, THEN he would have always known how vast the Universe is and how The Creator brought it into existence through the method of Evolution – specifically biological evolution regarding life on Earth.
Since Jesus came into the picture at a certain point in the timeline whereby the human population was totally ignorant of those things mentioned in the previous paragraph, he could not have been able to convey the truth of the reality and thus had to work with the made-up religious explanation for creation, to which the people he was in contact with, believed to be true.
As scientific advances have been made, the story of the garden of Eden becomes more and more silly and where once, the general population could accept the nature of The Creator figure’s role in the story, as acceptable and even exceptional, [in relation to human beings – who were not regarded in the same way] we can now appreciate the inaptitude of that personality as being an inaccurate image of someone who could possibly be considered ‘that which created the universe’.

See really, if the results of the experiment were a 'fail' the most logical solution was to have them die immediately from eating the fruit.

Since they didn't, this is reason to reject it was set up as an experiment.

No it isn't. It is reason to reject the explanation that the God-Entity of the story didn't expect things to go the way that they did go.

Where is your evidence for this claim, that camp 2 was created in response to non-theist arguments?

While it is not something which Christians acknowledge every other day, I thought it was worth mentioning as - not the only reason - but a largely neglected or overlooked reason.

Do you think I am being too generous in that?

I think there is no reason to think you are right in your claim.

Now - why would you think that?

[The Tanager]

I am saying that the omnipotent being knew that giving humans free will provided them with the ability to love that they would not have otherwise and that having this ability was better than having moral perfection without it. So, while God knew bad would result, it was still better than the alternative.

So while it would be bad for them it would be better than the 'alternative' which was first created for them. Which is the point of the thread. The alternative was the default position of Adam [not having the necessary knowledge] and the argument is not about "free will" because plainly what use is free will without knowledge of good and evil [as per the OP].
The problem with the story is that it includes both the forbidden fruit tree and the Serpent - both of which were permitted in the garden so obviously the Creator-Entity required Adam to obtain his knowledge in a way which was indirect. [not the default setting]

The alternatives I was speaking of were humans that (a) can love or (b) are morally perfect. If one requires moral perfection, one must do away with free will, which does away with love. If one wants love, they must allow for the possibility of moral imperfection and the evils it will bring with it. So, while God saw that bad (moral imperfections causing damage) would result, choosing humans to have the ability to love is still better than the alternative of moral perfection without love.

You seem to be thinking of something else. On that issue, I completely disagree with your interpretation of the story, as we both know. Adam was not created without the necessary knowledge to avoid eating the fruit. The forbidden fruit and the Serpent are not put in there by the Creator so that Adam could indirectly gain knowledge that God wanted him to. God doesn’t want Adam and Eve to choose for themselves good and evil. It’s a false knowledge that they ‘gained’. Or, perhaps, I’m just not understanding your point here.

Here you are still only speaking of religious ides rather than any actual supported evidence which points to truth.

I made two claims there. First, history shows us that humans are capable of evil. That is not a religious idea. It happens in and outside of religions. Do you not think human history is full of evils? Do you not point out the evils you believe Christendom has committed?

Second, and perhaps this is the focus of your response, I said that I believe the evil spoken of in Genesis is true because of actual arguments, not just spouting a religious idea. These are philosophical arguments built upon historical data. I did not outline those arguments or go into the support for those because you may not want to do that and I don’t want those discussions to overtake this thread if you don’t want to pursue understanding and/or analyzing those arguments with me. I’ve shared the same points various times in this thread (perhaps another we have talked on recently) and you haven’t seemed to want to pursue those; I figured it may be the same here. But I’m also fine if you do want to pursue those.

Nice try but too many holes in the explanation you give, Tanager.

There is no reason why a naked animal would 'realize' it was naked, especially if all other animals were also undressed.
Also to note, the God-Entity in the story makes a point of asking Adam "who told you that you were naked?" which itself clearly points to the idea that Adam was not aware he was 'without clothing' up to that event...

I’m not sure what your critique is here. I’m saying realizing that they were naked does not mean that they realized they were undressed for the first time. You seem to agree there. I’m saying it speaks to their shame and guilt.

Which is what the OP is investigating... the method used by the God-Entity of the story, in order to get them into a particular position whereby their knowledge could be manipulated through guilt and fear…

No, the story does not show God manipulating them through guilt and fear. God is presented as loving, one they can and should trust as the Creator of all, Who called everything that was created “good” and humans “very good”. God didn’t want them to “gain” the false knowledge of good and evil, choosing it for themselves, because they will fail in that, harming themselves and others.

and how that relates to the idea of Satan [The Accuser]. "Shame and Guilt" - self doubt, someone or thing entering into the natural and injecting an unnatural quality into it...see Post #111 in the thread "The Doctrine of Satan" for more evidence on this line of thought...that Christians Created The Image of Satan, and why they did so...

A few things from that post you linked. First, Christians who resort to labeling their opponents as “The Devil” when seeing that their opponents aren’t convinced by what else they’ve said are wrong to do so, in my opinion.

Second, the Devil is a part but not a major part of Christianity. I agree it is a bigger part of some people’s beliefs as Christians then it should be.

Third, you keep implying that disagreements between Christians have any bearing on whether their individual claims are true or not. They don’t. People disagree. Those disagreements put one in different worldviews (in a narrow sense of this term), even if the same name is used to describe the differing worldviews. If ‘worldview’ is used in its wider, umbrella sense, then, of course, there will be disagreements on some, even many issues, by people who share the same umbrella term.

We can tell through human history that parenting methods which involve shaming and guilting the offspring produce rather creepy results. IF said parents do so because they believe that this is how The Creator also does it, THEN we need look not further for evidence as to how that came about, and the subsequent damage it causes to those under it's regime.

Such methods are counter to what is presented of God in the Bible.

Christianity has not kept up with scientific discovery.

Christianity made it possible for scientific discovery to occur. It thrived because of the Christian view of God and Christians seeking scientific knowledge. Christians continue to be a part of scientific discovery in spite of some branches of Christianity’s attitudes towards science. Naturalistic worldviews have tried to claim a stranglehold on science but they don’t have it. They simply marry science with bad philosophy. Many Christians, unfortunately, divorce science through bad philosophy disguised as Biblical theology.

IF Jesus is in the position Christians claim, THEN he would have always known how vast the Universe is and how The Creator brought it into existence through the method of Evolution – specifically biological evolution regarding life on Earth.
Since Jesus came into the picture at a certain point in the timeline whereby the human population was totally ignorant of those things mentioned in the previous paragraph, he could not have been able to convey the truth of the reality and thus had to work with the made-up religious explanation for creation, to which the people he was in contact with, believed to be true.

This opens up more issues that could derail this thread. What do you mean by ‘evolution’? Do you think science shows that non-life evolved into life solely naturally? Many other questions would come up. Without going into all of that, I don’t think the Bible contradicts science, so Jesus wouldn’t be working with “made-up religious explanations”. But, if you want to offer support and reasoning, I will be able to respond to your claim more directly.

As scientific advances have been made, the story of the garden of Eden becomes more and more silly and where once, the general population could accept the nature of The Creator figure’s role in the story, as acceptable and even exceptional, [in relation to human beings – who were not regarded in the same way] we can now appreciate the inaptitude of that personality as being an inaccurate image of someone who could possibly be considered ‘that which created the universe’.

Please show how science disproves the Biblical God from being the creator of the universe if you expect a response from me that does such a discussion any good.

No it isn't. It is reason to reject the explanation that the God-Entity of the story didn't expect things to go the way that they did go.

That explanation cuts across everything the writers are about. Thus, it is unreasonable to come to that conclusion. Believe the story is false but to interpret it as being obviously contradictory is unreasonable.

Where is your evidence for this claim, that camp 2 was created in response to non-theist arguments?

While it is not something which Christians acknowledge every other day, I thought it was worth mentioning as - not the only reason - but a largely neglected or overlooked reason.

Do you think I am being too generous in that?

I think there is no reason to think you are right in your claim.

Now - why would you think that?

You made the claim, so you support it instead of shifting the burden.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #73]

The alternatives I was speaking of were humans that (a) can love or (b) are morally perfect. If one requires moral perfection, one must do away with free will, which does away with love. If one wants love, they must allow for the possibility of moral imperfection and the evils it will bring with it. So, while God saw that bad (moral imperfections causing damage) would result, choosing humans to have the ability to love is still better than the alternative of moral perfection without love.

What type of love are you referring to?
Why do you think a morally perfect entity would have no free will [and subsequently no love]?

Adam was not created without the necessary knowledge to avoid eating the fruit.

Yes. I am not surprised that you see it that way. The story, however, does imply that Adam was not created with this 'necessary knowledge'.

The forbidden fruit and the Serpent are not put in there by the Creator so that Adam could indirectly gain knowledge that God wanted him to.

I suppose at least you are not presently denying that the God Entity of the story put both the tree and the serpent in the garden. It's a start.

God doesn’t want Adam and Eve to choose for themselves good and evil.

This supposed omniscient being "didn't want" what he must have known would be inevitable - yet when you argue that it is an act of "love" to grant them the right to do what the Entity knew they would do, it rings hollow...

It’s a false knowledge that they ‘gained’.

Which only increases the problem. What 'true knowledge' can we expect to find in regard to this image of The Creator as presented by the story? You obviously think it is a true image presented. Yet you argue that Humans only obtained false knowledge. [through Adam]

If that were true, then one would have to accept that the image presented is a false image., because it is created through human beings who have false knowledge.

Rather - I think - that it is not a really a case of false knowledge, but one of incomplete knowledge, and as such, should not be regarded as 'sin' or 'evil' unless ignorance is 'evil'. Perhaps 'evil' has more to do with willful ignorance...sticking to faith-based concepts even in the face of growing evidence against said concepts.
But even if that were the case, willful ignorance is usually compelled by fearful imagination, so is understandable and need not be dealt with harshly by some God-Entity image who has a hard time accepting such.

I made two claims there. First, history shows us that humans are capable of evil.

It also shows us that humans are capable of good. But again, we have the problem of false knowledge, so - like with 'love', how are humans to know true from false? Good from evil?

Do you not think human history is full of evils?

No. I see it as full of natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it.

Do you not point out the evils you believe Christendom has committed?

No. There is no 'belief' involved. It is a matter of fact. At least when one is confronted with a malcontent human dictator one expects to be treated harshly.
When that is dressed up in garments of righteousness, the expectation rightfully ceases. even that harshness comes through that effigy. I do not get confused by evil activity dressed in finery and proclaiming itself to being "good' - [more false knowledge coming through said claim].

I said that I believe the evil spoken of in Genesis is true because of actual arguments, not just spouting a religious idea.

What evil is spoken of in Genesis?

I’m not sure what your critique is here. I’m saying realizing that they were naked does not mean that they realized they were undressed for the first time. You seem to agree there. I’m saying it speaks to their shame and guilt.

More likely, the story speaks of the human necessity to dress for climate. "Shame and guilt" in relation to nakedness is another one of those false knowledge things...linked to my argument that we humans falsely identify with the flesh [body]. We are easily instructed to feel ashamed of being human. It is a false image perpetuated by...The Accuser.

No, the story does not show God manipulating them through guilt and fear.

Not immediately - but subsequent stories developed off of that story, do indeed. That is why I argue that the image of The Creator as presented by all religions, is false. "False knowledge" as you call it.

God is presented as loving, one they can and should trust as the Creator of all, Who called everything that was created “good” and humans “very good”.

Again, it would depend on ones definition of 'love' - and there are many of those.
The highest form of Love is "Unconditional Love" - and it is plain to see that in the case of the image presented in the story, conditions were attached.
So '"yes maybe love" but "no - not the highest form of Love."

God didn’t want them to “gain” the false knowledge of good and evil, choosing it for themselves, because they will fail in that, harming themselves and others.

I disagree. The God entity is presented as sacrificing his own 'wants' just so humans would harm themselves and others exercising their free will?
Clearly that is a form of victim mentality. "God" is the poor "victim" because "Humans".

A few things from that post you linked. First, Christians who resort to labeling their opponents as “The Devil” when seeing that their opponents aren’t convinced by what else they’ve said are wrong to do so, in my opinion.

Yet they do so. Do you ever try to correct them? Defend those they attack?

Second, the Devil is a part but not a major part of Christianity. I agree it is a bigger part of some people’s beliefs as Christians then it should be.

Satan is a major character in the Christian play Tanager. Christians created Satan in the image the world now has of Satan. It is not a case of 'some' - but a case of most.

Third, you keep implying that disagreements between Christians have any bearing on whether their individual claims are true or not. They don’t. People disagree. Those disagreements put one in different worldviews (in a narrow sense of this term), even if the same name is used to describe the differing worldviews. If ‘worldview’ is used in its wider, umbrella sense, then, of course, there will be disagreements on some, even many issues, by people who share the same umbrella term.

I agree with the above in general. It actually places Christianity in a more realistic light. It is really nothing which should be of major significance. However, it is not the same light that most Christians see themselves through their beliefs, and in that, regardless of the truth - such masses of similar world views have a lot to do with how the real world shapes...manifests...unfolds its reality.
As such, I have seen no reason to take your particular Christian world view as somehow "the one to be noticing over all the rest."
In saying that, I would also add that this goes for the rest of those who call themselves "Christians".
Being a "Christian" is nothing to be proud of. Such is vanity.

We can tell through human history that parenting methods which involve shaming and guilting the offspring produce rather creepy results. IF said parents do so because they believe that this is how The Creator also does it, THEN we need look not further for evidence as to how that came about, and the subsequent damage it causes to those under it's regime.

Such methods are counter to what is presented of God in the Bible.

Yet there they are historically acted out by those who proclaim the Bible is truth, while also quite obviously are arguing with each other as to whos interpretations are the "true" truth.
I think you can appreciate why there are those of us who care not to partake in such antics and refrain from calling ourselves "Christians" at all.

Christianity has not kept up with scientific discovery.

Christianity made it possible for scientific discovery to occur. It thrived because of the Christian view of God and Christians seeking scientific knowledge. Christians continue to be a part of scientific discovery in spite of some branches of Christianity’s attitudes towards science. Naturalistic worldviews have tried to claim a stranglehold on science but they don’t have it. They simply marry science with bad philosophy. Many Christians, unfortunately, divorce science through bad philosophy disguised as Biblical theology.

Sorry Tanager. Christianity is still peddling folklore as literal truth. The story of the garden of Eden is believed by many - if not most Christians - as being the literal truth of how human beings came to be on this planet.
Individual Scientists who call themselves Christians have contributed to scientific discovery. That is not what I argued against.
All in all your reply simply appears to grasp at straw instead of acknowledging that humans might actually have even been more advanced if superstitious masses hadn't fought every inch to prevent science from coming to the fore. And for what reason? Because "God is the same yesterday today and forever?" and science threatens to expose false images and accompanying beliefs held about The Creator as it continues to uncover the facts of life?

[The Tanager]

What type of love are you referring to?

There is a difference between being compelled to do something nice for my wife and me freely choosing to do something nice for my wife. In the latter, I am loving my wife in the sense of love I am talking about here.

Why do you think a morally perfect entity would have no free will [and subsequently no love]?

I’m not saying those with free will could not be morally perfect. I’m saying that to require, to make sure, that they are morally perfect would necessarily negate their free will. If they wanted to commit moral evil, one would have to override that in order to maintain moral perfection.

Once one overrides a being’s freedom to will and do evil to another person or thing, then that being is no longer free to will the good of the other (i.e., loving the other); they are being compelled to will and do good.

The story, however, does imply that Adam was not created with this 'necessary knowledge'.

No, your interpretation of the story, which (in my opinion, for the reasons I’ve already noted) does an injustice to the context of the passage, leads you to that conclusion.

The forbidden fruit and the Serpent are not put in there by the Creator so that Adam could indirectly gain knowledge that God wanted him to.

I suppose at least you are not presently denying that the God Entity of the story put both the tree and the serpent in the garden. It's a start.

I think you emphasized the wrong part of my response in trying to understand it. I disagreed with your claim that they were put there so that Adam could indirectly gain knowledge that God wanted him to. In doing so, I did not commit to God literally putting the tree and the serpent in the world, if that is what you mean.

I think it could have been how it literally happened but I also think this could be a poetic telling of how the first two historic humans disobeyed the Creator or even a poetic telling of how humanity in general disobeys the Creator.

This supposed omniscient being "didn't want" what he must have known would be inevitable - yet when you argue that it is an act of "love" to grant them the right to do what the Entity knew they would do, it rings hollow...

There are two levels of “wants” here.

Does God want humans to (a) act freely or (b) do what God wants in every situation?
Does God want humans to use their freedom to do (x) or (y)?

Once the answer to (1) is (a), then God necessarily opens Himself up to being disappointed with the human’s free choice in (2). Knowing that He will be disappointed with the human’s free choice in (2) doesn’t change anything.

I’m not sure what you are saying about God granting them the right to do what God knew they would do. Granting them freedom comes logically prior to knowing what they end up doing with that freedom.

Which only increases the problem. What 'true knowledge' can we expect to find in regard to this image of The Creator as presented by the story? You obviously think it is a true image presented. Yet you argue that Humans only obtained false knowledge. [through Adam]

That comment was focusing upon one thing, not a statement about everything in the story. It focused on your claim that the story is about how humans gain moral knowledge. I’m saying the story is, in part, about them creating a false moral knowledge. From this experience, humans also gain true knowledge concerning the damage of their choice and knowledge concerning God’s love for them.

Rather - I think - that it is not a really a case of false knowledge, but one of incomplete knowledge, and as such, should not be regarded as 'sin' or 'evil' unless ignorance is 'evil'. Perhaps 'evil' has more to do with willful ignorance...sticking to faith-based concepts even in the face of growing evidence against said concepts.
But even if that were the case, willful ignorance is usually compelled by fearful imagination, so is understandable and need not be dealt with harshly by some God-Entity image who has a hard time accepting such.

I see no reason to think it is due to incomplete knowledge. They had everything they needed to make the right, loving choice.

It also shows us that humans are capable of good.

I agree. You were asking me about evil, though.

I made two claims there. First, history shows us that humans are capable of evil.

...

Do you not point out the evils you believe Christendom has committed?

No. There is no 'belief' involved. It is a matter of fact.

Not everyone uses terms in the same way. Perhaps I should have said “think”. Regardless, I made two claims and you were disagreeing with at least one of those claims or misunderstood me to be claiming something else. You are here agreeing with the first of the two claims I made. Now, the second...

I said that I believe the evil spoken of in Genesis is true because of actual arguments, not just spouting a religious idea.

What evil is spoken of in Genesis?

Adam and Evil don’t look out for each other, Cain murders Abel, Lamech murders someone who injured him and boasts about it, the wickedness that brought the flood, and then much more when we get into Abraham and his descendents.

More likely, the story speaks of the human necessity to dress for climate.

The story focuses on the human relationship with God, it’s not about dressing for climate. The mention of realizing their nakedness is directly tied to their disobedience of God. Prior to that they “were both naked and they felt no shame (2:25).”

"Shame and guilt" in relation to nakedness is another one of those false knowledge things...linked to my argument that we humans falsely identify with the flesh [body]. We are easily instructed to feel ashamed of being human. It is a false image perpetuated by...The Accuser.

The story doesn’t argue that, though. That is what we’ve been discussing.

Which is what the OP is investigating... the method used by the God-Entity of the story, in order to get them into a particular position whereby their knowledge could be manipulated through guilt and fear…

No, the story does not show God manipulating them through guilt and fear.

Not immediately - but subsequent stories developed off of that story, do indeed. That is why I argue that the image of The Creator as presented by all religions, is false. "False knowledge" as you call it.

You claimed the story shows a God getting them to this position. Now you are saying the Biblical story doesn’t say that but subsequent stories (Biblical ones?) do?

The highest form of Love is "Unconditional Love" - and it is plain to see that in the case of the image presented in the story, conditions were attached.

What conditions?

I disagree. The God entity is presented as sacrificing his own 'wants' just so humans would harm themselves and others exercising their free will?
Clearly that is a form of victim mentality. "God" is the poor "victim" because "Humans".

Are you saying that you think I’m saying God sacrifices His wants so humans would harm themselves and others? If so, then why do you think that? My view is that God sacrifices His wants of moral perfection so humans can be a part of a freely loving community (His higher want). There is no victim mentality there.

Yet they do so. Do you ever try to correct them? Defend those they attack?

That would depend on if I thought it would help anything. I would think such a maneuver was obviously irrational and that you (or other recipients) would just rightly dismiss it with no need of defense from me. If you’ve already corrected them, then why would I need to do so as well? They would probably see both of us as “other”. I would think that you and others would also be able to distinguish my interactions with you and them from such methods. But I’m also open to changing my mind on this.

Satan is a major character in the Christian play Tanager. Christians created Satan in the image the world now has of Satan. It is not a case of 'some' - but a case of most.

We may be meaning different things by “major”. Satan isn’t talked about that often in the Bible. Nowhere close to how much God is talked about.

Yet there they are historically acted out by those who proclaim the Bible is truth,

Sure, they are proclaimed by those who proclaim the Bible as truth yet aren’t living by it as truth.

while also quite obviously are arguing with each other as to whos interpretations are the "true" truth.

Every worldview (including your own) has people who argue with others as to whose interpretations of reality are the “true” truth.

I think you can appreciate why there are those of us who care not to partake in such antics and refrain from calling ourselves "Christians" at all.

I appreciate people not partaking in such antics. I don’t think they should be allowed to commandeer the term “Christian,” though. If you gained a following and those who followed you eventually sullied the label of Creator-Consciousness or another phrase you use, I don’t think it would be right for myself and others to associate such terms with only the bad bunch.

All in all your reply simply appears to grasp at straw instead of acknowledging that humans might actually have even been more advanced if superstitious masses hadn't fought every inch to prevent science from coming to the fore. And for what reason? Because "God is the same yesterday today and forever?" and science threatens to expose false images and accompanying beliefs held about The Creator as it continues to uncover the facts of life?

I agree that many people, Christians included, have fought against science and still do. Many Christians did not and do not.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #75]

There is a difference between being compelled to do something nice for my wife and me freely choosing to do something nice for my wife. In the latter, I am loving my wife in the sense of love I am talking about here.

Since you were last here there has been some discussion regarding "Love" which you might find helpful.

Post#39 onwards... - to do with "Unconditional Love" and "Conditional Love" - I think it helps to know which one someone is speaking of when they talk about [The Creators] Love.

Why do you think a morally perfect entity would have no free will [and subsequently no love]?

I’m not saying those with free will could not be morally perfect. I’m saying that to require, to make sure, that they are morally perfect would necessarily negate their free will. If they wanted to commit moral evil, one would have to override that in order to maintain moral perfection.

Assuming we agree that The Creator is a morally perfect being, who then is in the position of 'making sure' this is the case? Also - is The Creator [as a morally perfect being] without free will? [Assuming again that there was no one else present to make sure that The Creator's free will was negated]

We can agree that there "is no reason to test [require/make sure] a morally perfect being" and so The Creator can be assumed to have a free will AND be a morally perfect being - but then this creates a problem in relation to the idea of The Creator creating beings who are not like The Creator.

If The Creator cannot create morally perfect beings without also allowing the beings to have free will, then wouldn't this puzzle The Creator because The Creator is [we assume] a being who is both a morally perfect being and has free will.

Yet the way you say it, 'risk of evil' [the problem of evil] was seen to be something which could happen but The Creator was so loving that The Creator went ahead and did it anyway...took the risk. [conditional love]
My immediate concern with your story is that The Creator could not have known any risk was involved at all, unless The Creator had experienced this in previous creations.
IF that were the case THEN we have the problem as to why The Creator created more of the same when The Creator knew how bad that can go...all presenting an image of a Creator who is so determined to achieve something that suffering is besides the point.

I suppose at least you are not presently denying that the God Entity of the story put both the tree and the serpent in the garden. It's a start.

I think you emphasized the wrong part of my response in trying to understand it. I disagreed with your claim that they were put there so that Adam could indirectly gain knowledge that God wanted him to. In doing so, I did not commit to God literally putting the tree and the serpent in the world, if that is what you mean.

I think it could have been how it literally happened but I also think this could be a poetic telling of how the first two historic humans disobeyed the Creator or even a poetic telling of how humanity in general disobeys the Creator.

Which brings us to another point - one which presents a different characterization of The Creator than the "poetic" analogy of the garden story - one where the human forms developed through biological evolution and had to fend for themselves learning the ropes and finding their way, developing tools, making clothes, telling stories...one where The Creator Itself is the life consciousness in each an every form on the face of the planet.

One where good and evil are only constructs of a primate mind still developing where choices are made, mistakes happen and forgiveness and moving on are hallmarks of a sentient being maturing through knowledge and wisdom.

This supposed omniscient being "didn't want" what he must have known would be inevitable - yet when you argue that it is an act of "love" to grant them the right to do what the Entity knew they would do, it rings hollow...

I’m not sure what you are saying about God granting them the right to do what God knew they would do. Granting them freedom comes logically prior to knowing what they end up doing with that freedom.

The logical problem with this is that the situation [being earthbound] is not one of freedom in the first place.
There are conditions involved which make it that way. The will is therefore only 'free' in relation to the environment it is placed within. The will is an attribute of consciousness.

That is why the garden story fails miserably in its poetic attempt to explain how human beings came to be on this planet.
Take the scientific version, add to that version the idea we exist within a creation, and we immediately have a vaster deeper more complex vision as to what The Creator is more likely to be like, that the poetic biblical version humans made up in their ignorance.

That comment was focusing upon one thing, not a statement about everything in the story. It focused on your claim that the story is about how humans gain moral knowledge. I’m saying the story is, in part, about them creating a false moral knowledge. From this experience, humans also gain true knowledge concerning the damage of their choice and knowledge concerning God’s love for them.

One doesn't require a poetic story to understand ignorance and its affects in the grand scheme of things. False knowledge [ignorance of true knowledge] is a natural phenomena which can easily explain why such stories were made up in the first place.

The problem with false knowledge happens when human beings persist in believing the poetic stories are truth [true knowledge] because this impacts upon how the human species progresses and if the bulk of human beings persist with being under the shadow of superstitious nonsense [false knowledge] then that progress eventual becomes threatened with extinction.

As an example - when 2.38 billion individual Christians believe that Jesus is going to return and 'stop the world' and make it into a paradise, the world has 2.38 billion individuals who lack interest in helping [doing their part] in the resolving the problem of climate change.

Rather - I think - that it is not a really a case of false knowledge, but one of incomplete knowledge, and as such, should not be regarded as 'sin' or 'evil' unless ignorance is 'evil'. Perhaps 'evil' has more to do with willful ignorance...sticking to faith-based concepts even in the face of growing evidence against said concepts.
But even if that were the case, willful ignorance is usually compelled by fearful imagination, so is understandable and need not be dealt with harshly by some God-Entity image who has a hard time accepting such.

I see no reason to think it is due to incomplete knowledge. They had everything they needed to make the right, loving choice.

Which underlines the point I made above. IF the poetic stories people choose to believe in as 'complete [true] knowledge' [the only knowledge required] then "Houston, we have a problem".

However, the contingency is in place to offset the problem and consequences of belief in false knowledge. [3] as per "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife"
Obviously The Creator has plans for its conscious outposts of form in relation to this universe. Essentially this involves the creation of tools and terraforming, which cannot be achieved with individuals still stuck in beliefs based upon false knowledge. Fortunately there are individuals who are not in that position.

The Creator of this universe is obviously far-seeing, patient and exceptionally clever and creative. and loves unconditionally.

I agree. You were asking me about evil, though.

Your question implied only evil. [Do you not think human history is full of evils?] and I answered "No. I see it as full of natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it."

What evil is spoken of in Genesis?

Adam and Evil don’t look out for each other, Cain murders Abel, Lamech murders someone who injured him and boasts about it, the wickedness that brought the flood, and then much more when we get into Abraham and his descendents.

Natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it. These things are called 'evil' because they are interpreted through the filters which are based upon incomplete knowledge.
One could even say that it was because of incomplete knowledge that these actions happened. Point being, it is natural for such things to happen when incomplete knowledge rides the helm.

Also - I see your Freudian Slip there. That too is the product of false knowledge and accompanying filters.

More likely, the story speaks of the human necessity to dress for climate.

The story focuses on the human relationship with God, it’s not about dressing for climate. The mention of realizing their nakedness is directly tied to their disobedience of God. Prior to that they “were both naked and they felt no shame (2:25).”

Yes - I am aware of what the story is trying to focus on, as I am also aware of the idea that it is necessary for humans to dress according to their environment.
Which is the best explanation [truer knowledge] for why humans are clothed? The one where shame through disobedience of The Creator is tabled, or the one where humans dress for climate is tabled?
The logical choice has to be 'dress for climate'. It also has the advantage of freeing folk up from unnecessary guilt because of a self image which is based on false knowledge which resulted in a false image of The Creator.

"Shame and guilt" in relation to nakedness is another one of those false knowledge things...linked to my argument that we humans falsely identify with the flesh [body]. We are easily instructed to feel ashamed of being human. It is a false image perpetuated by...The Accuser.

The story doesn’t argue that, though. That is what we’ve been discussing.

To be fair - you are arguing that the story is about that. I am arguing that the story is false knowledge and couldn't have taken place as an explanation for the existence of this universe and us here within it.

Not immediately - but subsequent stories developed off of that story, do indeed. That is why I argue that the image of The Creator as presented by all religions, is false. "False knowledge" as you call it.

You claimed the story shows a God getting them to this position. Now you are saying the Biblical story doesn’t say that but subsequent stories (Biblical ones?) do?

No. That is why I used the words "not immediately" because those stories a built upon that story.

The highest form of Love is "Unconditional Love" - and it is plain to see that in the case of the image presented in the story, conditions were attached.

What conditions?

The conditions you claim were necessary to gain this type of love [conditional] as experience.

I disagree. The God entity is presented as sacrificing his own 'wants' just so humans would harm themselves and others exercising their free will?
Clearly that is a form of victim mentality. "God" is the poor "victim" because "Humans".

Are you saying that you think I’m saying God sacrifices His wants so humans would harm themselves and others?

That is the consequence, yes. The only way around that is to claim that the God in the story did not know how things were going to pan out and took the risk anyway. He knew it could go either way...
I can go with that argument if you want to, but we will first have to agree that the God-entity is, therefore, NOT omniscient

If so, then why do you think that?

Because that is what you are arguing when you say that the God-Entity put his wants on hold for the sake of - what can only be described as an experiment [if the God-entity is, therefore, NOT omniscient ]

My view is that God sacrifices His wants of moral perfection so humans can be a part of a freely loving community (His higher want). There is no victim mentality there.

There is no sacrifice either.

There is however, experimentation.

Satan is a major character in the Christian play Tanager. Christians created Satan in the image the world now has of Satan. It is not a case of 'some' - but a case of most.

We may be meaning different things by “major”. Satan isn’t talked about that often in the Bible. Nowhere close to how much God is talked about.

I was being specific to how the God is talked about as the accuser [of human beings.] and how the characterizations blur at the edges where they are so similar as to appear to be the same Entity. Which isn't surprising since both entities are created through Christian Imagery.

I think you can appreciate why there are those of us who care not to partake in such antics and refrain from calling ourselves "Christians" at all.

I appreciate people not partaking in such antics. I don’t think they should be allowed to commandeer the term “Christian,” though. If you gained a following and those who followed you eventually sullied the label of Creator-Consciousness or another phrase you use, I don’t think it would be right for myself and others to associate such terms with only the bad bunch.

I will quote myself from a current conversation I am having with Tam, as she also argues a similar focus.

Tam: Christianity is not Christ.

William: A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.

Tam: Christianity is also not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. A Christian is a person who is both a disciple of Christ and anointed with holy spirit.

William: Then why confuse things at all Tam. Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples". That way at least, the confusion is far less for folk to try and work out.
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".

[The Tanager]

Since you were last here there has been some discussion regarding "Love" which you might find helpful.

Post#39 onwards... - to do with "Unconditional Love" and "Conditional Love" - I think it helps to know which one someone is speaking of when they talk about [The Creators] Love.

Yes, definitions are important. I have been using “love” in the sense of “willing the good of another”. I believe God wills the good of another unconditionally. I don’t believe anyone, the Creator included, can lovingly force good on another since love and force are mutually exclusive in these senses.

Assuming we agree that The Creator is a morally perfect being, who then is in the position of 'making sure' this is the case?

No one can make sure moral perfection is the case if free will is also the case. Each individual is responsible for their own will.

Also - is The Creator [as a morally perfect being] without free will? [Assuming again that there was no one else present to make sure that The Creator's free will was negated]

I believe the Creator has free will.

We can agree that there "is no reason to test [require/make sure] a morally perfect being" and so The Creator can be assumed to have a free will AND be a morally perfect being - but then this creates a problem in relation to the idea of The Creator creating beings who are not like The Creator.

If The Creator cannot create morally perfect beings without also allowing the beings to have free will, then wouldn't this puzzle The Creator because The Creator is [we assume] a being who is both a morally perfect being and has free will.

The Creator did create beings with free will that were morally perfect. Then they sinned and became morally imperfect.

If you mean that the Creator should be able to create beings with free will that absolutely could not sin, then that is an illogical concept.

Yet the way you say it, 'risk of evil' [the problem of evil] was seen to be something which could happen but The Creator was so loving that The Creator went ahead and did it anyway...took the risk. [conditional love]

I’m still unsure of what you mean by “conditional” love here. How does taking a risk necessarily mean one’s love is conditional?

My immediate concern with your story is that The Creator could not have known any risk was involved at all, unless The Creator had experienced this in previous creations.
IF that were the case THEN we have the problem as to why The Creator created more of the same when The Creator knew how bad that can go...all presenting an image of a Creator who is so determined to achieve something that suffering is besides the point.

Why must a previous experience of something be required to know if there is any risk in it?

Which brings us to another point - one which presents a different characterization of The Creator than the "poetic" analogy of the garden story - one where the human forms developed through biological evolution and had to fend for themselves learning the ropes and finding their way, developing tools, making clothes, telling stories...one where The Creator Itself is the life consciousness in each an every form on the face of the planet.

One where good and evil are only constructs of a primate mind still developing where choices are made, mistakes happen and forgiveness and moving on are hallmarks of a sentient being maturing through knowledge and wisdom.

Yes, that is a different characterization.

The logical problem with this is that the situation [being earthbound] is not one of freedom in the first place.
There are conditions involved which make it that way. The will is therefore only 'free' in relation to the environment it is placed within. The will is an attribute of consciousness.

That is why the garden story fails miserably in its poetic attempt to explain how human beings came to be on this planet.

Why is this a logical problem or failure? I’ve specifically claimed that the will has these limitations. It is still free to make choices within environmental conditions rather than having those limited choices determined.

The problem with false knowledge happens when human beings persist in believing the poetic stories are truth [true knowledge] because this impacts upon how the human species progresses and if the bulk of human beings persist with being under the shadow of superstitious nonsense [false knowledge] then that progress eventual becomes threatened with extinction.

First, you don’t think poetry can express truth? Or just that this (possible) poetry is wrong?

Second, most of the goodness you experience in this world is a direct consequence of the Christian worldview overtaking other worldviews in persuasion (by those who believe it truth and those who don’t), even in the midst of those who misuse the Christian worldview for their own evils.

As an example - when 2.38 billion individual Christians believe that Jesus is going to return and 'stop the world' and make it into a paradise, the world has 2.38 billion individuals who lack interest in helping [doing their part] in the resolving the problem of climate change.

Yet a huge portion of these individuals do, in fact, help the poor, homeless, animals, caring for the environment.

Your question implied only evil. [Do you not think human history is full of evils?] and I answered "No. I see it as full of natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it."

If taken out of context. Here is the context of my statements, though. In post 31 you talked about why God expelled humans from the garden. In post 68 I said it was a mercy to each other and the planet because of the evil they would be capable of now that they are choosing for themselves what is good and evil instead of listening to the omniscient God’s view of good and evil. In post 69 you said “the overly evil Human actions is only alleged by the story. Where is the supporting evidence?” So, no, my question doesn’t imply humans are only capable of evil. My question came within you asking specifically about the evil actions.

Natural events, some of which are embarrassing but we get over it. These things are called 'evil' because they are interpreted through the filters which are based upon incomplete knowledge.
One could even say that it was because of incomplete knowledge that these actions happened. Point being, it is natural for such things to happen when incomplete knowledge rides the helm.

Also - I see your Freudian Slip there. That too is the product of false knowledge and accompanying filters.

I consider killing another person for no good reason more than just an embarrassing natural event. And while one could say it was because of incomplete knowledge, you’ve been arguing that is what Genesis shows us, when it doesn’t say or imply that. I’m not sure what Freudian slip you think was there.

Yes - I am aware of what the story is trying to focus on, as I am also aware of the idea that it is necessary for humans to dress according to their environment.
Which is the best explanation [truer knowledge] for why humans are clothed? The one where shame through disobedience of The Creator is tabled, or the one where humans dress for climate is tabled?
The logical choice has to be 'dress for climate'. It also has the advantage of freeing folk up from unnecessary guilt because of a self image which is based on false knowledge which resulted in a false image of The Creator.

My point is that Genesis isn’t trying to answer the question of why humans are clothed, so it’s silly to treat it as though it gives a bad answer to that question.

To be fair - you are arguing that the story is about that. I am arguing that the story is false knowledge and couldn't have taken place as an explanation for the existence of this universe and us here within it.

You have both critiqued the truth of the story as well as made claims about what the story is meaning to teach.

The conditions you claim were necessary to gain this type of love [conditional] as experience.

What conditions do you think I claimed as necessary? I think God’s love, God’s willing our good, is unconditional, lavished upon all of us. With free will, we can reject that love and decide for ourselves what is good and evil.

Are you saying that you think I’m saying God sacrifices His wants so humans would harm themselves and others?

That is the consequence, yes. The only way around that is to claim that the God in the story did not know how things were going to pan out and took the risk anyway. He knew it could go either way...
I can go with that argument if you want to, but we will first have to agree that the God-entity is, therefore, NOT omniscient

Even with your seeming assumption of God being temporal, that is not the necessary consequence. Yes, God sacrifices His wants and humans end up harming themselves and others, God knowing it would happen, but that is not why God sacrifices His wants. God doesn’t sacrifice His wants so humans would harm themselves and others.

I was being specific to how the God is talked about as the accuser [of human beings.] and how the characterizations blur at the edges where they are so similar as to appear to be the same Entity. Which isn't surprising since both entities are created through Christian Imagery.

Support where you see them appearing to be the same Entity, so I can assess this claim.

I will quote myself from a current conversation I am having with Tam, as she also argues a similar focus.

Tam: Christianity is not Christ.

William: A good reason as any not to call oneself a "Christian" - works for me.

Tam: Christianity is also not a Christian. Christianity is a religion. A Christian is a person who is both a disciple of Christ and anointed with holy spirit.

William: Then why confuse things at all Tam. Let Christians and Christianity be what they are and those like yourself can call yourselves "Disciples". That way at least, the confusion is far less for folk to try and work out.
The battle is not to reclaim a lost label for Christ, while telling most Christians they are "not really true Christians." and don't forget, the label was not one which Christ placed upon his followers. That dubious award goes to those who first used it to replace "Disciple".

Many people, who disagree with each other, call themselves disciples. Many who would change "Christian" for "disciple" would still disagree with each other. How would that be less confusing?