|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Philosophical ramblings on the Adam & Eve Parable | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
NIV writes: 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) 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." 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
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:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminBen Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2893 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That would mean that A&E did not have free will. Also why would spiritual closeness or intimacy negate free will?
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4111 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
nwr writes: OK... Personally I think the idea of original sin is a misreading of the story.nwr writes: 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.
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024