Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Philosophical ramblings on the Adam & Eve Parable
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1 of 80 (252632)
10-18-2005 6:56 AM


The A&E Parable in a nutshell
NIV writes:
Gen 2:9-In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen 2:15-17-The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
This parable has appeared in many forms and in many debates throughout many threads in this forum and other forums. I wished to add a few assertions to the mix (of this endless debate)
1) Free will would not exist were we never to have fallen. I believe this because were we in communion, there would be no need for free will as communion was the only decision needed. Once you catch a cab, you no longer drive.
2) God knew that humans would behave as they did. The Fall was no surprise to God.
3) Genesis need not be literal. Symbolism does not refute the overall truth of God. (Nor do metaphors, nor do parables)IMHO
This message has been edited by Phat, 10-22-2005 02:13 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminBen, posted 10-18-2005 8:46 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 10-22-2005 2:54 PM Phat has replied
 Message 5 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-22-2005 3:19 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 8 by robinrohan, posted 10-24-2005 2:30 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 10-24-2005 2:54 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 80 by Hawkins, posted 03-07-2006 11:46 PM Phat has not replied

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 80 (252666)
10-18-2005 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
10-18-2005 6:56 AM


PB,
Please edit for format. Maybe put all definitions into separate "qs" blocks.
Also, you have a section where two premises are on the same line.
Finally, if you're going to use bullets to mark your important points, please make sure you're using bullets on ALL the important points.
By the way, what's A&E?

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-18-2005 6:56 AM Phat has not replied

      
    AdminBen
    Inactive Member


    Message 3 of 80 (254026)
    10-22-2005 2:52 PM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

      
    Ben!
    Member (Idle past 1399 days)
    Posts: 1161
    From: Hayward, CA
    Joined: 10-14-2004


    Message 4 of 80 (254028)
    10-22-2005 2:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    10-18-2005 6:56 AM


    Re: The A&E Parable in a nutshell
    1) Free will would not exist were we never to have fallen.
    Any idea why God wanted us to have free will? Was God lonely?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-18-2005 6:56 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by Phat, posted 10-22-2005 7:28 PM Ben! has not replied
     Message 60 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-19-2005 10:26 AM Ben! has not replied

      
    Adminnemooseus
    Administrator
    Posts: 3974
    Joined: 09-26-2002


    Message 5 of 80 (254031)
    10-22-2005 3:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    10-18-2005 6:56 AM


    Topic closed until A&E replaced by full words in title
    Probably should be defined in message 1 also.
    Quick appraisal - Pretty weak topic to have been promoted.
    Admin(sometimes you have to hit someone with a big stick)nemooseus

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-18-2005 6:56 AM Phat has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 6 of 80 (254071)
    10-22-2005 7:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Ben!
    10-22-2005 2:54 PM


    The A&E Parable in a nutshell
    Ben writes:
    Any idea why God wanted us to have free will? Was God lonely?
    Traditionally, God wanted to give us an option, as I understood it.
    I don't imagine that God would ever be lonely. Of course, being the only One in the Beginning.....He created a bunch of people to communally be His Bride, I guess....what does everyone else think?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Ben!, posted 10-22-2005 2:54 PM Ben! has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 7 by deerbreh, posted 10-24-2005 1:27 PM Phat has not replied

      
    deerbreh
    Member (Idle past 2893 days)
    Posts: 882
    Joined: 06-22-2005


    Message 7 of 80 (254477)
    10-24-2005 1:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
    10-22-2005 7:28 PM


    Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    I have always thought that "The Fall" theology has some gaping holes in it and presents a really cynical view of God. Plus it seems to be a rather convenient excuse for humans as a way of explaining their moral failures ("It's not my fault, it's Adam's for bequeathing me a fallen nature" or even worse, "The Devil made me do it."). Furthermore how could a loving God say "Well here is what you can do but by the way, there is a tree over here that has wonderful fruit that you must not eat." Did't Jesus suggest in the Lord's prayer that God isn't in the business of tempting us? "Lead us not into temptation" doesn't seem to jive with "forbidden fruit." Further, the fallen nature bit suggests that an innocent babe is sinful and that is just nuts and contrary to common sense.
    This message has been edited by deerbreh, 10-24-2005 01:27 PM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by Phat, posted 10-22-2005 7:28 PM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by nwr, posted 10-24-2005 4:44 PM deerbreh has replied

      
    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 80 (254490)
    10-24-2005 2:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    10-18-2005 6:56 AM


    Re: The A&E Parable in a nutshell
    Genesis need not be literal. Symbolism does not refute the overall truth of God. (Nor do metaphors, nor do parables)IMHO
    The story of the Fall was a way of explaining the discrepancy between the real and the ideal.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-18-2005 6:56 AM Phat has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-19-2005 10:29 AM robinrohan has not replied

      
    purpledawn
    Member (Idle past 3458 days)
    Posts: 4453
    From: Indiana
    Joined: 04-25-2004


    Message 9 of 80 (254492)
    10-24-2005 2:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
    10-18-2005 6:56 AM


    Free Will Before or After the Fall
    quote:
    1) Free will would not exist were we never to have fallen. I believe this because were we in communion, there would be no need for free will as communion was the only decision needed.
    That would mean that A&E did not have free will.
    Also why would spiritual closeness or intimacy negate free will?
    quote:
    Once you catch a cab, you no longer drive.
    I think the art of writing good analogies is totally lost today.
    What has this got to do with the price of eggs?

    "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Phat, posted 10-18-2005 6:56 AM Phat has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 10 of 80 (254506)
    10-24-2005 4:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 7 by deerbreh
    10-24-2005 1:27 PM


    Re: Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    I'll first comment on the subtitle:
    Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    That seems like a wrong conclusion. It opens the possibility:
    Since you violated the law, you get slammed for your choice. Therefore you did not have free will in making the choice. Therefore the criminal law should not apply.
    The idea seems to reduce the criminal law to pointlessness.
    Now onto my views on original sin:
    "It's not my fault, it's Adam's for bequeathing me a fallen nature"
    Personally I think the idea of original sin is a misreading of the story. Perhaps the misreading originated with Paul.
    To me, the idea behind the story is that man was created biologically as an animal (an ape, just as the theory of evolution would say). What differentiates man from ape is not biology, it is that man has knowledge of good and evil. The eating of forbidden fruit is simply a metaphor to account for this distinction.
    IMO the conclusion is not that we are sinful due to Adam's mistake. Rather, it is that we know good from evil, and hence cannot use ignorance as a way to deny our sinfulness. Since an innocent baby does not know good from evil, that baby is indeed innocent.
    Philosophers sometimes refer to "the principle of charity". The principle is that, when reading what somebody has written, one should attempt to understand it in a way that is charitable to the author. Here, "charitable" is intended to imply that the text as interpreted makes sense as rational argument or choice by the author.
    In reading the Adam and Eve story, I think we should read it in a way that is appropriately charitable toward God.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by deerbreh, posted 10-24-2005 1:27 PM deerbreh has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by ReverendDG, posted 10-24-2005 8:16 PM nwr has replied
     Message 14 by Phat, posted 10-31-2005 7:28 AM nwr has replied
     Message 18 by deerbreh, posted 10-31-2005 9:16 PM nwr has replied

      
    robinrohan
    Inactive Member


    Message 11 of 80 (254543)
    10-24-2005 7:12 PM


    other commentary on Genesis
    There is some writing from the past which suggests a rather puzzling account of the period before the Fall. Take a look at this:
    There is likewise a double Law by which we are regulated in our conversation towards another. In both the former respects, the Law of Nature and the Law of Grace (that is, the moral law or the law of the gospel) to omit the rule of justice as not properly belonging to this purpose otherwise than it may fall into consideration in some particular cases. By the first of these laws, man as he was enabled so withal is commanded to love his neighbor as himself. Upon this ground stands all the precepts of the moral law, which concerns our dealings with men. To apply this to the works of mercy, this law requires two things. First, that every man afford his help to another in every want or distress.
    . . . The law of Grace or of the Gospel hath some difference from the former (the law of nature), as in these respects: First, the law of nature was given to man in the estate of innocence. This of the Gospel in the estate of regeneracy. Secondly, the former propounds one man to another, as the same flesh and image of God.
    John Winthrop, 1630 (Winthrop was a Calvinist).
    There are, then, 2 laws: "The law of nature" and the "law of grace."
    The law of nature is the original covenant between God and Man apparently ("given to man in the estate of innocence") and coresponds, I believe, to the Calvinist "Covenant of Works." The second law is the Covenant of Grace (Christ's sacrifice).
    There is a lot to be said about this text, but I wanted to point out the puzzling part. Adam and Eve, the Bible suggests, did not know good and evil. However, according to this text they had a set of rules called the "law of nature"--which sounds like something innate. They had a moral system and, not only that, this system is still in some sense operable. It's puzzling, as I say, but does suggest that this innocent state is more complicated than it might seem--at least according to the Calvinists.
    ed. spelling
    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-24-2005 06:14 PM
    This message has been edited by robinrohan, 10-24-2005 06:16 PM

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 11-01-2005 8:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

      
    ReverendDG
    Member (Idle past 4111 days)
    Posts: 1119
    From: Topeka,kansas
    Joined: 06-06-2005


    Message 12 of 80 (254568)
    10-24-2005 8:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
    10-24-2005 4:44 PM


    Re: Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    I was just reading this and wondering if paul might have been saying that it is human nature for man to fail and the first man failed just like everyone else, not that he failed and we all take on his failure
    I could be wrong though

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by nwr, posted 10-24-2005 4:44 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by nwr, posted 10-24-2005 9:06 PM ReverendDG has not replied
     Message 62 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-19-2005 10:31 AM ReverendDG has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 13 of 80 (254576)
    10-24-2005 9:06 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by ReverendDG
    10-24-2005 8:16 PM


    Re: Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    I think you may be right, demongoat. Or the adam metaphor shows that we have knowledge of good and evil. Therefore we are held responsible for our own sins. And it is our nature.
    The idea that we inherit Adam's sin seems quite wrong, in the sense that I don't find that spelled out in the scripture. It may be a more recent interpretation, and perhaps a mistaken one.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by ReverendDG, posted 10-24-2005 8:16 PM ReverendDG has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 14 of 80 (255760)
    10-31-2005 7:28 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by nwr
    10-24-2005 4:44 PM


    Re: Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    nwr writes:
    Personally I think the idea of original sin is a misreading of the story.
    OK...
    nwr writes:
    IMO the conclusion is not that we are sinful due to Adam's mistake. Rather, it is that we know good from evil, and hence cannot use ignorance as a way to deny our sinfulness.
    OK,again. Now...by knowing good from evil, what can be defined and/or agreed upon as good? Is this concept a belief in God or is it some internally originating concept? My argument would suggest that we are incapable of internally creating a concept of a greater good than ourselves and that God Himself is the origin of good.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by nwr, posted 10-24-2005 4:44 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by nwr, posted 10-31-2005 8:29 AM Phat has replied
     Message 19 by deerbreh, posted 10-31-2005 9:22 PM Phat has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 15 of 80 (255768)
    10-31-2005 8:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Phat
    10-31-2005 7:28 AM


    Re: Free will not free will if you get slammed for making a choice.
    Now...by knowing good from evil, what can be defined and/or agreed upon as good? Is this concept a belief in God or is it some internally originating concept?
    I would argue that here "knowledge" does not refer to a set of facts (x is good, y is evil). Rather, it refers to an ability to make wise judgements as to what is good and what is evil.
    My argument would suggest that we are incapable of internally creating a concept of a greater good than ourselves and that God Himself is the origin of good.
    If that is right, then we should all make the identical judgements as to what is good and what is evil. However, we don't. For example, President Bush apparently believes that certain interrogation methods that border on torture, when used against people designated as enemy combatants, are good. Many people strongly disagree.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Phat, posted 10-31-2005 7:28 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Phat, posted 10-31-2005 11:23 AM nwr 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