God and Good Parenting

How on earth did I ever become a God's advocate?

quote:

---

How would that be clear in a world with no death? How are Adam and Eve supposed to know what "die" means?

---

Who said there was no death in the world? I've heard some bibleboppers use that claim, but have never seen the evidence that the Bible says any such thing. Even if Adam and Eve could not they could certainly see it in the things around them.This is not to mention that the Bible clearly shows that Eve was well aware what death meant. It terrified her quite a bit. The serpent had to convince her that death was not going to happen for her to eat from the tree.Oh please don't let anyone think I am saying this as some sort of factual statement about world history. But the fact is that in that fairy tale Eve does know what death is and that is what prevented her from even touching the tree.

quote:

---

"Good and evil" as a shorthand for "internalizing a moral code sufficiently close to society's." I assume that you've been able to do this; otherwise you're a very careful psychopath.

---

Oh this one is a very juicy topic, worthy of its own thread and not cluttering up this valuable one. Let me just say this very short thing...The conditioning of people to react to their desires in certain ways has nothing to do with morality. It is simply conditioning and requires no concept of good or evil.I myself have no moral code to speak of, and certainly have not internalized anything close to one. It seems all very funny to me. I have internalized the more ancient concept of virtues and vices. This is about judging traits and not actions.However, I have been conditioned (and realize the practicality of) not slaughtering coworkers when they disagree with me, or taking things without paying when people aren't looking.In defense of my argument I will point out that many very "moral" people continue to do things that are "evil", and that they even admit this but must fight it at every step... that's because in spite of learning a morality, they have not been properly conditioned. I on the other hand never even have an itch to steal (can't say I've never been tempted to kill someone). I view the level of temptation as simply the lack of conditioning.We can review this in another thread if you want. I really think it is a side issue and not needed to make your point.

quote:

---

Perhaps you misunderstand. It's not the gun itself that is good or evil. The point is that to obey a moral God is to make a moral choice, but prior to the eating Adam and Eve are incapable of moral choice - therefore God's admonitions are meaningless.

---

His admonition was not that it would be immoral, only that it would be dangerous. Once they did it anyway, he came up with the sin angle.But this is besides the point. While it may be questionable why he gave them access to a tree that he never wanted them to eat from, I don't think that in itself is the bad thing he did. Although I must admit that after they ate from it he did a pretty good job of securing them from Eden (posting guards and all that), so why he didn't for the tree earlier? I guess it came down to trust...In the end the tree didn't do anything to anybody (if taken literally), other than grant them knowledge (false or real) of morality.It was the snake that was the real danger. There is about 0 question that they would never have eaten from the tree except that the snake tricked them into it.So the tree is besides the point. The question is why did God allow there to be the serpent in his garden, and if he just had to, why didn't he put in safeguards so that Adam and Eve would be safe from his trickery. Not to mention, why did God punish them at all when it was obvious that they were tricked by this other creature?

quote:

---

No matter how many times I tell a 2-year-old "don't touch my shotgun" I'm still responsible if they blow their head off. Hell, that's even true for adults, in our society - if I leave dangerous items unsecured, I'm responsible for mishaps even if I told you they were dangerous.

---

Well I think this idea of responsibility is a load of crap. It is the result of everyone these days wanting to punish someone for every bad thing that happens. Life happens. And kids, while perhaps not the most intelligent agents, have their own will and so responsibility.I think it may be negligent for a parent to leave something lying around that is surely going to have negative consequences if a kid simply touches it (which is probably the definition of anything with a trigger), but I don't believe that parents should be punished any more than they already have been if their kid blows their head off.I watched an interesting documentary years ago on a tribe of Indians in Canada. They still lived according to tradition. In their culture kids had access to all the dangerous things that parents had. They were warned about the danger, but things were not kept away from them.In one scene a father has ended chopping wood and one of his young sons picks up the axe and starts playing with it. The doc guy asks with concern about why the father is letting this happen, and the father relates their culture's idea that individuals must learn on their own from experience and the best parents can do is warn their kids of the danger. When asked what happens if the kid cuts his hand off the father quickly replied "Then he probably won't mess around with an axe again."Is this guy negligent, or is this a "wrong" attitude? Personally I don't think so. Of course I would not leave a loaded gun near a child, and I doubt this guy would either. I suppose if he did and his kid blew his own head off, the father would learn not to leave loaded guns lying around.

quote:

---

It's my responsibility to take reasonable precautions against your willful stupidity, as it was God's responsibility in this case.

---

What am I your kid or something? Why do you have responsibility over my willful stupidity? If so, you may be in for a lot of work.Heheheh.Just bustin' yer balls. Honestly, all I am saying is I think your point could be made without analogy to the tree, or to leaving guns lying around.Probably a better example would be the snake, and letting a drugpusher have direct unsupervised access to your kids 24/7.

---

holmes

Right, it's the same question, then. What kind of parent leaves dangerous items/creatures/influences in the perfect playroom they created for their children? No, I think it's a realization of a fundamental truth - no matter how smart you are, you can't avoid being an idiot sometimes.C'mon, Holmes. I'm sure you've had moments of pure idiocy. Do you think that you should die as a result? I hope not. It's just reasonable to realize that at some point, otherwise well-meaing people are going to do something dumb. Therefore other smart people have a responsibility to make sure being dumb isn't immediately fatal. Because you're at my house, or whatever. Because on my Stupid Day, I'd like the same courtesy from you. Sure, consider my analogy amended. It's the same question either way. I just originally phrased it in a way that I felt was compelling to the religious tradition I surmised DrkBeloved may have subscribed to.

quote:

---

It's just reasonable to realize that at some point, otherwise well-meaing people are going to do something dumb. Therefore other smart people have a responsibility to make sure being dumb isn't immediately fatal.

---

Ahhh... a real disgreement. I do not believe we must idiot-proof the world for everyone else.Let me put it this way, since everyone CAN screw up, how can I trust anyone to determine what the best method is to safeguard the world for me?I think consideration for others' safety is nice, and warning others when we see a dangerous situation arising is okay too. But if you warn someone and they do it anyway, it seems like those are the breaks.I remember a long time ago my dad told me that a certain bulb was super hot, and so I shouldn't touch it. My immediate reaction was to reach out and touch it. That was stupid... but it was all my own, and not his respnsibility for having had a hot lamp bulb where I could touch it. He did warn me.My only problem is with people that put something dangerous within reach, say not to do it, and then also tell us (or have others tell us) that we should. Mixed messages are the real irresponsibility worthy of blame.I hope you didn't take the "load of crap" thing too seriously, I was just jerkin' yer chain since I was playing "god's advocate".

---

holmes

holmesLol you play a mean Gods's advocate,however the issue comes in your statement. There's the rub. Is it not the point of God to be the one who doesnot screw up? As Crashfrog and I have pointed out the God of the bible is not consistent with the idea of a caring parent since God is the one who makes up the game and the rules, how CAN he bitch if humans follow one of the paths he set out? A prudent parent does not play head games.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

quote:

---

I do not believe we must idiot-proof the world for everyone else.

---

I don't think anyone is saying the world must be made idiot proof, just that we should refrain from gratuitously planting trees, the eating of whose fruit will lead to eternal damnation for the majority of humans to come.

The Tree of Knowledge was merely a choice...

---

Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?
Can he walk at all,
Or if he moves will he fall?
Is he alive or dead?
Has he thoughts within his head?
We’ll just pass him there
Why should we even care?

quote:

---

Oh please don't let anyone think I am saying this as some sort of factual statement about world history. But the fact is that in that fairy tale Eve does know what death is and that is what prevented her from even touching the tree.

---

Thanks for the "fairy tale" remark, you successfully insulted me, my God, and His people to the highest degree possible...

---

Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?
Can he walk at all,
Or if he moves will he fall?
Is he alive or dead?
Has he thoughts within his head?
We’ll just pass him there
Why should we even care?

I guess I take a greater degree of responsibility - if you see somebody do something stupid/fatal, and fail to take a reasonable effort to stop/save them, then you're partly responsible for their fate. You know I didn't.

...made by people who were, by definition, unable to understand the consequences. Sounds like a bum rap to me.

Wouldn't this shoot down the future heaven that Christians believe in, too? If there's a place where there's not only no evil, but not even any weeping, mourning, or sadness, then doesn't your argument make it a place without free will?There are a lot of things to choose that are good that would leave us with free will, without needing evil to be one of those choices.By the way, I believe in God, and I believe he made everything, and is responsible for what evil is in the world. I don't think he was "forced" into it, and I don't think God needs people to bail him out for what he did. I add that, just so you know I'm not arguing against God putting evil in the world. I'm just arguing that he wasn't forced into it by the need for free will.

I am in agreement on the God as bad parent thing, that comes in the mixed message criticism I mentioned in post 18. I just didn't think the tree itself was the problem, or the ignorance of adam&eve. I thought the odd bit was the snake who he made a deceptive creature and then was surprised when the snake convinced adam&eve to do something wrong.You think maybe he should have had the foresight to warn them about the snake in addition to the tree... maybe more than the tree in fact.

---

holmes

I'm still tellin' ya it wasn't the tree. It was the snake. Adam and Eve pretty clearly had no intention to eat from the tree until the snake came along and used Eve's forgetfulness against her.The fault of God lay in creating a snake that would deceive and then letting him spend time in the garden, not in planting some of his God-stash there.

quote:

---

I don't think anyone is saying the world must be made idiot proof

---

I do believe this is the result of the idea that smarter people must (or have a responsibility to) protect people from their own stupidity.

---

holmes

quote:

---

Thanks for the "fairy tale" remark, you successfully insulted me, my God, and His people to the highest degree possible...

---

Oh please. After what athiests and evolutionary theorists have been called, as well as their scientific methods and theories, refering to a rather exotic tale that I believe is not literal as a "fairy tale" is not that bad in comparison.Heck, over the last week I have been told several times I am going to burn in hell (apparently the prospect giving one fellow some measure of glee), that I am a creep, and that my gf and some other friends are also creeps that should die soon and burn.To my mind the Bible is nothing more that a collection of stories. Moral fables. Perhaps I could have said fable instead of fairy tale.What exactly am I supposed to say if I don't believe its real, or literal? Is that insulting? At least I am not saying you guys ought to die soon and burn for eternity.

---

holmes

quote:

---

if you see somebody do something stupid/fatal, and fail to take a reasonable effort to stop/save them, then you're partly responsible for their fate.

---

This is somewhat a different animal than what you were talking about before. If I see someone actively doing something that might result in injury or death, I definitely do feel a responsibility to say something or help out.But that is different than having to make sure that even out of eyeshot, someone will be incapable of making a fatal error.By the way, do you feel this responsibility should extend to trying to stop people from smoking? If not, what are the limits of responsibility for others?

---

holmes

Iron Man Nobodys denying that.But why be pissed off when someone,of their own free will, makes a choice you allowed them? God supposedly creates eveything and then is angry at his creation for doing that which He made possible? This is the action of a being that is not altogether straight in the head.
My contention is still that a God who can allegedly create a universe that is so subtly complex is so blatantly stupid when it comes to humans that He created that I personally find it ludicrous in the extreme. Again this is just my opinion and not intended to upset those who are religious.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-13-2004]