Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 152 of 227 (555060)
04-12-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rrhain
04-12-2010 1:23 AM


"Rrhain" writes:
You're considering performing Action X. Somebody tells you that it is beetaratagang to do it and clerendipity not to. Somebody else tells you that no, it's the other way around.
Do you do it or not?
Excellent post. I think this is what the OP was getting at -> how can you make an informed decision without knowledge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 1:23 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 153 of 227 (555065)
04-12-2010 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Meddle
04-11-2010 7:31 PM


Malcolm writes:
But then did Adam and Eve understand the consequences? God warned them that they would die, but then as many Christians argue, death didn't exist until after the fall, so they'd have no concept of death.
that is a strange misconception
Yes there was no human death until after the fall, but Eden was populated with an animal population who did die. Death of animals always was. It was only mankind who were given the propsect of eternal life because they were made in Gods image.
Animals were not and therefore should not be considered to have lived forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Meddle, posted 04-11-2010 7:31 PM Meddle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 3:49 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 154 of 227 (555066)
04-12-2010 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rrhain
04-11-2010 10:41 PM


Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. The Gensis 1:20 says nothing of the kind. Oh, you're equivocating on the word "nephesh," aren't you?
But let's go with your claim. This would mean that animals have morality. But you just said that if animals have morality, then the source of morality is not god.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways: Either animals are moral agents and acquire their morality without god, thus showing that morality is not connected to god, or they aren't moral agents and thus they have no souls.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia 1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467 writes:
Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2)
Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines Nephesh as writes:
the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17,11 Dt 12,23: (249 X) ... soul = living being, individual, person.
Are animals living beings? Yes they are therefore they are souls just as mankind are souls....living, breathing beings.
The greek idea of soul has nothing to do with the jewish Nephesh/Soul of the bible.
Rrhain writes:
Now, please answer my question:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
when you tell me the consequences, in the same way God told Adam and Eve the consequences, then i can choose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2010 10:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 3:53 AM Peg has replied
 Message 160 by Apothecus, posted 04-12-2010 1:50 PM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 155 of 227 (555067)
04-12-2010 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Peg
04-12-2010 3:28 AM


Peg writes:
Yes there was no human death until after the fall, but Eden was populated with an animal population who did die. Death of animals always was.
Adding to the text again? I don't recall it ever saying animals died in Eden.
It was only mankind who were given the propsect of eternal life because they were made in Gods image.
Adam and Eve were bever meant to live forever. See Genesis 3:22:
quote:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever
Animals were not and therefore should not be considered to have lived forever.
According to the text, neither did Adam and Eve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Peg, posted 04-12-2010 3:28 AM Peg has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 156 of 227 (555068)
04-12-2010 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Peg
04-12-2010 3:37 AM


Peg avoids the question. She has been given the exact same information that Adam and Eve had, and yet she continues to claim ignorance (note the significance of that fact).
One leads to heaven. The other to hell.
Which is which?
Beetaratagang or clerendipity? One figure is telling you one thing, the other is telling you the opposite. Which do you choose?
Why are you hesitating? You're not stupid.
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Peg, posted 04-12-2010 3:37 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Peg, posted 04-12-2010 7:40 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 157 of 227 (555081)
04-12-2010 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Rrhain
04-12-2010 3:53 AM


*cough*
Genesis 2:16And Jehovah God also laid this command upon the man: From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. 17But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.
*cough*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 3:53 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Huntard, posted 04-12-2010 8:23 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 159 by bluescat48, posted 04-12-2010 9:13 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 3:16 AM Peg has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2296 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 158 of 227 (555101)
04-12-2010 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Peg
04-12-2010 7:40 AM


Would it help if Rrhain told you it was beetaratagang and I told you it was clerendipity?
Because that's what happened to Adam adn Eve. One person told them it was bad, the other told them it was ok. Turns out the one who told them it was ok was telling the truth. They didn't die that day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Peg, posted 04-12-2010 7:40 AM Peg has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 159 of 227 (555126)
04-12-2010 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Peg
04-12-2010 7:40 AM


So might I ask,"How did Adam know what 'to die' meant."
Just as you can't answer RRhain's question as to Beetaratagang or clerendipity.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Peg, posted 04-12-2010 7:40 AM Peg has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 160 of 227 (555152)
04-12-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Peg
04-12-2010 3:37 AM


A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Hi Peg.
This thread is fascinating.
Over the course of 150-odd posts you've been asked, nay, hounded to answer "the question". I get the impression that Rrhain (and others) have asked this in the past (of you, I'm sure, and others as well). It must smart a little for you (and Slevesque) to need to tap dance around the issue instead of just admitting you cannot answer "the question".
That is, you can't answer without compromising many (if not all) base tenets of your literalist dogma.
Rrhain's right: neither of you is stupid. So it is particularly telling that I can't imagine you don't recognize your dilemma and the indefensible position in which you find yourselves, at least from a reasonable, rational standpoint.
Don't feel bad, guys. As far as I can ascertain from an (admittedly) cursory search, no one else can come up with an acceptable response to the underlying basis of Rrhain's question, either. I'll leave it to you to think about the ramifications.
This inability and/or refusal to answer a simple question speaks volumes.
Have a good one.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Peg, posted 04-12-2010 3:37 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by killinghurts, posted 04-12-2010 8:58 PM Apothecus has replied
 Message 166 by Peg, posted 04-13-2010 1:45 AM Apothecus has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 161 of 227 (555160)
04-12-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Rrhain
04-11-2010 11:55 PM


ncorrect. They are exactly the same thing. Adam and Eve don't know what "good" and "evil" are, just as you don't know what "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" are.
Adam and Eve were presented with a choice between good and evil: Listen to "good" god or "evil" serpent. Since they hadn't eaten from the tree yet and thus didn't know what "good" and "evil" were, how could they make a legitimate choice? What resources could they call upon to help them know which path to take?
I have stated these ressources early on in the discussion. It's not about listening to 'good' God or 'evil serpent', all the while not knowing what good and evil is.
It's about listening to God, the creator of everything. The same God which gave you dominion over all creation, as opposed to the serpent, which you are supposed to rule over. One tells you eating the fruit is 'bad', the other tells you it is good. They obviously have contradictory definitions of the words, but since you don't have the ability to make such a judgement yourself, you can't take a decision based on this. However, you have the information to make the logical choice to trust God.
In fact, in any situation of trust, it is because you are lacking something in regards to that specific situation. In this situation it is the knowledge of good and evil, which makes this the situation of trust.
This aspect of trust in the decision making you are skipping over, because when it is added into the equation your gibberish analogy doesn't stand up, as it is no longer a crap-shoot 50/50 decision anymore.
And I'm sorry if you feel I am avoiding any issue, but in fact I am discussing exactly your analogy. Just because I am arguing that it is not a correct analogy given the situation does not mean I am avoiding it ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Rrhain, posted 04-11-2010 11:55 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 4:24 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 162 of 227 (555162)
04-12-2010 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Rrhain
04-12-2010 12:28 AM


You do realize that you just said that Adam and Eve were justified in listening to the snake. God has shown himself to be incompetent and the serpent is described as being very intelligent.
I have a hard time seeing how you can conclude from God's act of creation that he is incompetent. you would have made it another way, so it makes him incompetent ?
And your previous description a particular event is so biased in it's description that everything that would make God 'incompetent' in the sequence is in fact added by you unto the text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2010 12:28 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-12-2010 3:00 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 192 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 4:43 AM slevesque has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 227 (555176)
04-12-2010 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by slevesque
04-12-2010 2:18 PM


Gen 2 has a primitive and anthropomorphic god that screwed up his first creation attempt and had to alter it (Adam was alone and the animals didn't do it so he had to try again with Eve), who losses his main dish and ends up stumbling upon them hiding, and in the end goes: oh crap, I better put guards at the gate so they do take this even further and become immortals.
He was hardly competent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by slevesque, posted 04-12-2010 2:18 PM slevesque has not replied

  
killinghurts
Member (Idle past 4994 days)
Posts: 150
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 164 of 227 (555257)
04-12-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Apothecus
04-12-2010 1:50 PM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
quote:
no one else can come up with an acceptable response to the underlying basis of Rrhain's question, either
There may not be an acceptable response, but a reasonable one would be that the story is a fabrication; a myth used to scare people into submission.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Apothecus, posted 04-12-2010 1:50 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Apothecus, posted 04-12-2010 9:46 PM killinghurts has not replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 165 of 227 (555261)
04-12-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by killinghurts
04-12-2010 8:58 PM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Hey KH.
There may not be an acceptable response, but a reasonable one would be that the story is a fabrication; a myth used to scare people into submission.
Indeed, but getting a literalist to see reason is like trying to herd cats.

"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by killinghurts, posted 04-12-2010 8:58 PM killinghurts has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 166 of 227 (555295)
04-13-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Apothecus
04-12-2010 1:50 PM


Re: A case study in "Refusal to Answer the Question"
Apothecus writes:
Over the course of 150-odd posts you've been asked, nay, hounded to answer "the question". I get the impression that Rrhain (and others) have asked this in the past (of you, I'm sure, and others as well). It must smart a little for you (and Slevesque) to need to tap dance around the issue instead of just admitting you cannot answer "the question".
That is, you can't answer without compromising many (if not all) base tenets of your literalist dogma.
Not quite.
I have already explained numerous times that Adam and eve were told where eating from the tree would lead them. I've provided the scripture which clearly states it....'you will positively die'
That is the difference with Rrhains question to me. He is not telling me what the consequences of either option will be. If he wants to make this a fair challenge, then in like manner, he needs to provide the consequences before i can make a choice. If he cannot do that, then his question is nothing more then a philosophical mind game.
Adam and Eve were not left in the dark with regard to the consequences of eating from the tree. No one seems to accept that yet even though it is clearly stated in the passage.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Apothecus, posted 04-12-2010 1:50 PM Apothecus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Huntard, posted 04-13-2010 4:39 AM Peg has replied
 Message 180 by Apothecus, posted 04-13-2010 3:26 PM Peg has not replied
 Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 04-14-2010 5:31 AM Peg has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024