Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and Satan
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 26 of 110 (491063)
12-11-2008 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by DevilsAdvocate
12-08-2008 7:20 PM


Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Except that was not the case with Adam and Eve. They had no exposure to evil. They were innocent in a similar manner in which a small child who has not matured or been exposed to the big wide world.
A knowledge of good and evil doesn't appear to be required in the case of Adam and Eves choice. There is no indication that theirs was a moral choice - rather, the indication is that it was a consequential one - them only gaining a "knowledge of good and evil" (ie:conscience) on falling but having an idea as to consequence before choosing.
For your matchbox analogy to work you would have to assume Adam and Eve hadn't a balanced appreciation of the positive/negative consequences attaching to their choice for/against God. Your child left playing with a matchbox might be influenced by the positive consequence of an intriguing flame but if their "choice" isn't countered by a balanced appreciation of the negative consequences of lighting the match then it's no choice at all.
If Adam and Eve possessed a balanced appreciation of the consequences of their choice, then all that was left was for their own free will to decide what way to go. It's not necessary that a full knowledge of all consequences attaching to the choice be known, in order for the choice presented to be a balanced one. It only requires that the level of the knowledge of consequences (whatever that level was pitched at) be balanced for both options.
After setting up the choice, God leaves them effectively sitting in the middle of a balanced see-saw. It's for them to decide to which end of the see-saw they will walk.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-08-2008 7:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-11-2008 9:31 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 30 of 110 (491148)
12-12-2008 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by DevilsAdvocate
12-11-2008 9:31 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
iano writes:
A knowledge of good and evil doesn't appear to be required in the case of Adam and Eves choice. There is no indication that theirs was a moral choice - rather, the indication is that it was a consequential one - them only gaining a "knowledge of good and evil" (ie:conscience) on falling but having an idea as to consequence before choosing.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Your assertion does not fly. If someone (a child or an adult) has an understanding of the consquences of his actions than effectively he is making a moral choice between what is acceptable and what is not acceptable with the understanding of what happens if he makes the wrong choice.
My assertion has two wings:
1) The consequences of making for example, an omlette, is that the eggs shell will be broken. There is no morality involved in a choice limited to consequences. The question is whether you prefer pristine eggshells or omlettes only.
2) There is no suggestion in the biblical account that the choice faced by Adam and Eve was other than consequential (from their perspective). The notion that their choice was consequential and not moral is strongly supported by their only gaining "a knowledge of good and evil" (how better would you define the word "conscience"?)after the choice. And it was only after the choice was executed that their eyes were opened resulting in them acting as moral beings (hiding on the dawning realisation they had done wrong).
-
For your matchbox analogy to work you would have to assume Adam and Eve hadn't a balanced appreciation of the positive/negative consequences attaching to their choice for/against God.
Good is morally accepted behavior and evil is morally reprensible behavior is it not? If Adam and Eve knew the full consequences of their actions than they would know the difference between good and evil would they not? How is this possible if they had not yet eaten of the tree of Good and Evil? Would you not agree that their understanding of the consequences of their actions would not be unlike that of a young child?
In my remark I use the term "balanced appreciation". I remarked later that there is no need to have a full appreciation of consequences in order to have a balanced consequential choice. The word morality needs to be dropped from the discussion re: their choice.
That said, assuming Adam and Eve indeed had no morality then a full appreciation of the consequences wouldn't include any moral dimension. This doesn't render them the same as a child with a matchbox however.
-
Your child left playing with a matchbox might be influenced by the positive consequence of an intriguing flame but if their "choice" isn't countered by a balanced appreciation of the negative consequences of lighting the match then it's no choice at all.
Exactly! My point. Adam and Eve should not be held responsible if their understanding of good and evil was not fully developed and they do not fully understand the consequences of their actions.
If I told my 4 year old daughter do not touch those matches or you could burn down the house and you may die and then leave her with the box of matches, again who is at fault if she dies?
I'm supposing (given the biblical evidence) that the choice facing Adam and Eve was consequential only - no good or evil involved from their perspective.
You're assuming the lack of consequential balance attaching to your 4 year old daughter is the same lack of consequential balance attaching to Adam and Eve. In your daugthers case we know she has no appreciation of death or the dangers and damage arising out of a fire. The command "do not" is hollow.
We can't say the same about Adam and Eve as we don't know what their understanding was of consequences (although the account indicates Eves appreciation of consequences). In which case, you're left relying on the assumption that they are like your 4 year old, consequentially speaking.
-
The question is did they have this balanced appreciation? Do you really think they understood the death God was supposedly talking about?
They didn't need to understand the death God was talking about to have a balanced appreciation. All you need for balanced appreciation is balance - obviously enought. That the level of knowledge and appreciation could be balanced at a low level or medium or high level is irrelevant to the issue of balance.
Suppose one day God stands hard on Adams toe and Adam yells in pain. God says "see that grain of sand on the beach? Well, that's the equivilent of that amount of pain you felt. Now see all the grains of sand on this beach? Well that's the equivilent of death"
If God ensures that the appreciation for the other side is the same then you have a balanced choice set up. There is no need to have an experiential knowledge of the ugliness of death or the pain of separation from God in order to have balanced choice.
-
And why would a good God place the eternal judgement of billions of people on this one act. It would be like me a father not only allowing my daughter to burn down the house and kill herself but kill all her sibblings, grandchildren and great-grandchildren because of this one act by a child with no understanding of the eternal consequences of this one act. It is unfathomable the ridiculousness and pure malice and evil of this story.
God set in motion a plan that involved giving every single person he created the choice of whether to reside in his presence for eternity or to whether reside outside his presence for eternity. This for obvious enough reasons: choice is intrinsic to proper relationship - for love relationships can't be determined robotically or demanded.
It's your existance, you get to decide where to spend it.
Adam and Eve were first up and were presented with a neutral consequential choice and they choose "no". And in choosing "no" they corrupted the nature of all their offspring to that we were born defaulting to the "no" position. That is to say, left to our own devices we couldn't have a balanced choice wrt God - our natures are inclined to love sin and to hate God. To ensure that we are (effectively) put in the same position as Adam and Eve, our sin-loving natures are balanced by something that Adam and Eve didn't have access to at the time of making their choice. A conscience, a knowledge of good and evil.
Yes, we are all born condemned (outside Gods presence). But yes, we can all be saved from condemnation (brought into Gods presence). It's depends on the outcome of our sin influence /conscience influenced choice. It's a balanced choice at that - not the same category of choice that Adam and Eve had but balanced for all that.
How elegant that at the very moment of falling into a sin nature, man was provided with the very tool aimed at bringing about his salvation: a knowledge of good and evil!
Wrapping it all up neatly in the end is the fact that Adam and Eve themselves could also be saved from their sin. They never made a moral choice in the garden so in a sense weren't choosing for/against eternal relationship with God. It wouldn't be fair of God not to give an appreciation of the actual consequences involved in letting a person making that kind of eternal choice.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-11-2008 9:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 10:23 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 35 of 110 (491372)
12-15-2008 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate
12-14-2008 10:23 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
So you are equating Adam and Eve's eternal choice of eternal life with God or eternal damnation in hell as well as the ramifications of physical death, introduction of horrible debilitating diseases, etc to the choice of wanting fry an egg or an omelet? LOL!
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the category difference between moral and consequential choices. By all means insert a heavierweight consequential example if you like - it doesn't alter the fact of two categories.
-
Again my analogy stands. If Adam and Eve did not have the foreknowledge of the goodness or badness (consequences) of their actions then they like children should not be held fully accountable for these actions much less damning them FOREVER and inflicting debilitating and life threatening diseases, illness, eternal death and damnation etc FOR EATING A FRUIT
Now that we're agreed that consequential choice (and not moral choice) is the subject at hand wrt Adam and Eves choice.
Adam and Eve had a degree of foreknowledge w.r.t. the good and bad consequences attaching to their choice. The temptation wouldn't actually be tempting unless a good consequence was perceived if chosing for it. Similarily, the prohibition wouldn't be recognised as such unless there was perceived negative consequence attaching to it.
What do you propose? Should God have increased the level of knowledge attaching to the negative consequences? Give more of an inkling of what death and illness mean? If he did, would he not also have to increase the level of knowledge (and attraction) regarding the positive consequencess of their choice - in order to maintain a balanced choice. Leave aside the fact that the positive consequences were a lie.
Increase both sides of the choice all you like - so long as you maintain balance in the choice. What have you altered in carrying out such an exercise?
-
My daughter knows some of the consequences if she play's with matches i.e. Dad gets mad, go to time out, could get hurt. However, she does not fully understand the destructiveness that fire can cause and does not understand the permanence of death. Thus she would not be held responsible in a court of law for any damage or physical harm (if she lives) that the fire caused. I and her mother would be held legally and morally culpable for her actions.
There is no balanced appreciation of consequence in the choice facing her - the balance is completely skewed in fact. You can assume the balance was skewed in Adam and Eve's case - but it's only that assumption that permits comparison with your 4 year old. And only that assumption that permits you to shift the blame to God.
-
As children grow up, are exposed to the consequences of their actions and learn them first hand through trial and experience, they are increasingly held responsible for their actions. Adam and Eve, according to the Bible, had none of these types of experiences, death had not even entered the world yet (according to the Bible); yet they are held responsible for their actions even though they did not understand the full ramifications of their actions. Do you honestly think that they said "I know that if we eat this fruit God told us not to eat that we will doom billions of people to eternal torment and torture in hell as well as introduce terrible, debilitating diseases that can literally eat up our bodies, as well as introduce war, pestilence and famine that will brutally kill billions of babies, children, men and women, however I don't care I just want to eat this apple!". Do you really think they thought this process through to this extent.
I've addressed this above: balance of knowledge on both side enable a true choice. The level of knowledge on both sides is irrelevant to the issue of balanced choice.
-
You are making assumptions not in the Bible. Even if you tell these things to someone, it is not the same as experiencing them first hand. I didn't really begin to understand the permanence of death until I was nearly 9 years old and my grandfather passed away even though I had been baptized by him at 8 and he told me about salvation, eternal damnation and eternal life.
Somehow or other Adam and Eve had an appreciation for the meaning of words of all sorts. It's safe to assume they also had some appreciation for the meaning of the word "death". How God gave them an appreciation for words and what their level of understanding of those words were is not relevant to the issue of balanced choice.
-
I would disagree. Even adults have a hard time with death, disease and destruction much less eternal death and torment. And your placing the eternal damnation and misery of all human life on one decision of a bite of a fruit?
All that happened with one bite of the fruit is that everyone who ever lived got a to choose their eternal destination via the fallen route. Had Adam chosen otherwise, it's safe to say that God would have enabled a choice for every person via that route.
No one is eternally damned by Adam or Eve. They are eternally damned by their own choice. We're all born on a default path to damnation by default but can be saved from that path. One of two eternal destinations decided upon by a God-enabled choice of ours.
I know it's the most serious business imaginable. And I'm not making light of the destination that faces those who chose against God. But is this not blindingly fair?
-
So does my daughter only love me because I demand it? Is she robotic in her love? She love me because of the love I show her. How loving am I to give her a book of matches and let her kill herself?
Of the various kinds of love, your daugthers love would be referred to as "need love". In part, it's a outcome (or so the psychologists would tell us) of her recognising her own vunerability and dependency on you. It's a natural thing for a child to do and that love will hopefully develop into the kind of love that is freely given.
-
This is not what most Christians believe. According to the vast majority of Christians Adam and Eve's choice was about choosing spiritual life or spiritual death (i.e. a relationship with God or not). This choices was most definitely a moral choice!
I'd welcome argument from Christians which would indicate how it is they conclude Adam and Eve had a moral (as opposed to solely consequential) aspect to their natures. If anyone could find a better definition for the word conscience than "a knowledge of good and evil" then I'd be all ears.
The consequences of their choice were as you say. But I don't read anything that informs us of that being Adam and Eves perspective.
-
It wouldn't be fair of God not to give an appreciation of the actual consequences involved in letting a person making that kind of eternal choice.
-
My point exactly!
By anyone I mean a person capable of making a moral choice. Adam and Eve were capable of doing this after they fell - they then had a morality. They also knew something of the consequences of separation from God - just as we all do. We all live in a fallen world. And we all have something of an appreciation for God - we're made in his image and likeness.
And like their choice, there is no need that we have full knowledge of the consequences of both sides of our choice in order that it be balanced. Like, could you imagine giving someone a taste of totally-blissful-heaven and a taste of totally-tormenting-hell (so they have fuller foreknowledge of the choice) then ask them to "choose" which place they'd prefer to spend eternity?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-14-2008 10:23 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 10:48 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 40 of 110 (491396)
12-15-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 10:48 AM


Re: Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
It still is a moral choice. Like I said before if anything was a moral choice it would be this choice by Adam for the fate of the rest of mankind both physically (pestilence, disease, pain, death, etc) and spiritually (eternal damnation to hell).
Either Adam and Eve were moral agents or they were not. If not, then their choice was not a moral one - irrespective of the scale of the consequences that followed their choice.
Given indications that they were not moral agents (they didn't have a knowledge of good/evil prior to their choice exercised) could you explain why you think their choice was still a moral one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 10:48 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 4:50 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 44 of 110 (491402)
12-15-2008 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by DevilsAdvocate
12-15-2008 4:50 PM


Re: Consequential choice.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
A moral agency as defined in the dictionary is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong". Since you say Adam and Eve were not moral agents...
Since the biblical evidence indicates thus and there is presented no case for the contrary, we'll accept for the purposes of discussion, that they were not moral agents - any choice they were faced with was faced with on the basis of perceived-by-them consequences only.
-
then you are proving my point about how sadistic this decision by your god was to place a choice that would devastangly affect the lives of billions of their offspring (pain and suffering, disease, famine, death) in the hands of two beings who had no reference to right and wrong.
On second thoughts...
-
This choice which determined the most important ramifications to the human race to date in your words is no different than "whether you prefer pristine eggshells or omlettes only."
This is the most understated and trivialized statement of the human condition I have ever heard.
...I'll bow out of discussion with you on this one DevilsAdvocate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-15-2008 4:50 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024