How did Adam and Eve know good from evil?

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. On the other hand the serpent described something they could understand i.e. being like God. I think what i'm trying to ask is did they really have a choice?

Peg writes:

quote:

---

do animals have morals?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

If they do, then yes, we could explain morals without God.

---

So are you going to change your position or are you going to run away from your own logic?Now, answer my question, please:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

his analogy with Beetaratagang and clerendipity is still flawed because told him which choice led to which consequences.

---

And thus, you show you miss the point.Adam and Eve didn't know which choice led to which consequences, either. They were innocent and incapable of understanding no matter how patient god was in trying to explain.And even then, why should they listen to god's explanation of what "good" is? Your reaction depends upon Adam and Eve already knowing that god is "good" but that is impossible because they haven't eaten from the tree yet and thus don't know what "good" is.Now, I am cheating a little. You know what "salvation" and "damnation" mean. Therefore, you understand that this choice is fraught with consequences. But rather than speak gibberish, the point is still the same:Once choice leads down one path. The other choice leads down a different path.If you are incapable of understanding where those paths lead, how are you possibly responsible for the choice that you make? What resources can you draw upon to guide your choice such that it is an informed one?

quote:

---

Now you can argue that they didn't understand what the consequences were, but then in this case another more refined analogy would be needed then the one he is presenting.

---

But that's the point. You don't understand just like they didn't understand.How are "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" from your perspective any different from "good" and "evil" from theirs?

---

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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

actually the bible says that animals ARE souls.
Genesis 1:20, 24 says Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls....let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.

---

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.Or, perhaps, you can choose the third option which is that because animals have souls but no morality, they are all damned for eternal suffering, no exceptions, every last one of them. Is that your claim?Now, please answer my question: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.

hotjer writes:

quote:

---

But why do they have a problem with nakedness? Well, probably because of sexual thoughts that they never had before.

---

No, not at all. Adam and Eve were having sex. Remember, god punishes Eve with an increase in the pain of her childbirth. There was always expectation that they were going to have sex and eventually children. What saved them from sin regarding their sex was their innocence. They hadn't eaten from the tree yet.But even so, why is it the very first thing they panic over is something other than the fact that they just ate from the tree? No matter what it was they had done before, none of it compares to eating from the tree. Why is their shame something else?

---

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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

what his it got to do with apologetics?

---

Because Genesis was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context. To impose a Christian filter over it is arrogant at best.If you want your religion to be taken seriously, Peg, then you must return the favor. Surely you aren't about to say that Judaism doesn't understand its own traditions, are you?Now, answer my question, please: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.

killinghurts writes:

quote:

---

Am I morally right in concluding, as an independent human the following:
a) The bible is the source of all good morals, and
b) the bible says:

​

"... if you sell your daughter..."

​

c) it's okay to sell my daughter.

​

Since Peg is incapable of answering this question I put it to others in this thread.

​

Anyone?

---

I will:The first premise is faulty. The bible is not "the source of all good morals." Selling one's child, no matter the gender (and let us not pretend that misogyny has nothing to do with it), is wrong. There is no justification for it. That the Bible tries to come up with "proper" ways to do it ignores the fact that the practice is evil in and of itself.

---

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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

He did condone it

---

Then why did he give rules about how you can put your own child into slavery? Why did Jesus not preach against it? Why did Jesus, in fact, tell slaves to obey their masters?And, in fact, your claim is simply false. God not only condones slavery, he commands it: There is no ambiguity here: God is telling the Israelites to plunder the neighboring population for slaves, that they are to be property, and that they are to be willed as property to one's descendants.So if god condemns slavery, if he will "put an an end to the people who practice" slavery, what does this mean for the Jews? They practiced it at god's command?Or is slavery OK if god tells you to do it?And please answer my question:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

---

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.

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

because B and C are not some equal entities for Adam and Eve

---

Incorrect. 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?

quote:

---

It is all a matter of trust, and not knowledge.

---

You're equivocating on the word "knowledge." You're using it now to mean "book learning" rather than the contextual meaning of "morality." It isn't just "knowledge" but knowledge of "good and evil."Again, they were not stupid. Please repeat that to yourself. Adam and Eve were not stupid. They did not lack for "knowledge" the way you just used it.What they lacked was the understanding of what "good" and "evil" were.They were innocent, not stupid.Just as you are: You don't understand what "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" are. And yet, you are presented with a choice between them. So what resources can you draw upon given your innocent state that will allow you to choose between them?Why should they trust god? Because he's "good"? What does that mean to someone who doesn't know what "good" means?You keep dancing around the issue. Adam and Eve were innocent, not stupid. Your inability to choose between "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity" has nothing to do with knowledge. It has to do with innocence.If one person tells you that doing something is "beetaratagang" while someone else tells you that no, it is "clerendipity," do you do it or not? You're not stupid. You're innocent.

quote:

---

If they had had the knowledge to make the decision, it would no longer be a situation of trust, but a situation of personal wisdom. I hope you see what I mean.

---

But that's just it: They don't have the knowledge and yes, I do see what you mean. You're avoiding the issue.

---

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.

slevesque writes:

quote:

---

The fact that they didn't have the knowledge of good and evil does not mean that they didn't have the required knowledge to make the decision to trust God and not the serpent.

---

Really? Why? You're assuming knowledge that they didn't have because they hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

quote:

---

They knew that God was the creator of all things, that he was the one who established the natural order of things.

---

So? Why does that mean they should trust god as to what to do? After all, god had already screwed up royally, completely misunderstanding his own creation. He creates Adam...but he creates him alone which isn't good. So rather than create another human, he creates all other animal life upon earth in order to find a wife for him...which is completely inappropriate. So he has to put Adam to sleep and create another human. So given that past history, why should Adam and Eve think god has any understanding of how things work?The serpent is described as being the smartest thing around. So if you're going to try and logic it out, why would they pay attention to the perpetual screw-up compared to the one who seems to know's his stuff? What resources could they call upon to lead them to choose between "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity"?

quote:

---

They knew the serpent was a living thing, and threfore they had dominion over it, as did God, who had created it.

---

So? Wouldn't it make sense, then, that the serpent be honest with them? If they do have dominion over the animals, why would they then revolt against the humans?What resources do Adam and Eve have to choose between "beetaratagang" and "clerendipity"?

quote:

---

but you remember that you were once told by a firefighter

---

Hold on just a second. What's a "firefighter"? Remember, I'm innocent and don't know these things.See, you're assuming the very thing that is denied: Adam and Eve don't know what "good" and "evil" are and thus don't know that it is "good" to listen to god.

quote:

---

And so the correct decision, even if you don't understand it, is to trust him instead of your friend who knows shizzles about fires.

---

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.So where is the justification for their punishment? What resources did they have to lead them to choose god over the snake? How could they possibly decide between "beetaratagang" and "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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

let me go ask my dog

---

Actually, you should ask your ass.No, that isn't a snide comment. The serpent isn't the only talking animal in the Bible. And when the ass talks, its owner is not surprised.Now, please answer my question: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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

nor does the text say that they obtained Gods knowledge.

---

Incorrect. In fact, the exact opposite is true. The text directly and specifically says that they do obtain god's knowledge: Even god admits that Adam and Eve are the equal of god.Are you calling god a liar?

quote:

---

explain why they were previously happy in their naked state, but after, they were not happy in their naked state?

---

Because they became as god, knowing good and evil, and thus realized that they were sinning. After all, the Bible directly says so: Thus, running around naked is a sin, something to be ashamed of. Adam and Eve weren't because they were innocent and thus didn't know what good and evil were.But when their eyes were opened, becoming as gods, the very first thing they panic over is their nakedness: It doesn't help your argument if you're going to misquote the text.Now, please answer my question: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.

Peg writes:

quote:

---

At the completion of everything he had made, this includes Adam and Eve in their naked state....'God saw everything and look, it was very good'

---

First, you're confusing Genesis 1 with Genesis 2. But that said, you're ignoring the specificities in Gen 2 that specifically show you to be wrong: They were sinning, but they were not ashamed of it because they were innocent.The very first thing they panic over is their nakedness: Even god knows that they're sinning: If being naked is not a sin, why would god immediately know that they had eaten of the tree due to Adam's mentioning that they were naked?You're the one saying that the tree didn't actually do anything. And yet, god knows that they ate of the tree simply because Adam is talking about being naked. If the problem is simply that they decided to follow their own opinions, then it wasn't the tree that did it. How does god know that their first decision with their own moral compass was to eat from the tree rather than to cover up?And even then, why would they even care that they were naked if it weren't for the fact that the tree gave them the knowledge of good and evil that they lacked? Clearly god understands that being naked is a sin because his very first statement is that somebody told them. But if being naked isn't a sin and if everything is good, who on earth could possibly have told them? Why would god even consider the possibility that somebody "told them" they were naked when there isn't anybody anywhere that would have cared let alone knew what "naked" is?

quote:

---

LOL it also shows how easy it is to come to a completely contrived conclusion by cutting out the context.

---

Precisely. You are a master at cutting out context. That's why you continue to spout Christian dogma when examining a Jewish text.Now, please answer my question: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.

hotjer writes:

quote:

---

G creates A and E with the faculty of X and only X according to Genesis

---

Incorrect. Adam and Eve were created without the knowledge of good. They would not gain it until they ate from the tree.Ergo, your entire analysis fails.

---

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.

Peg responds to me:

quote:

---

Ok, in the same way God informed Adam and Eve of the bad consequences if they chose to eat, you tell me the consequences and then i can make the choice.

---

I already did. One leads to salvation while the other leads to eternal damnation.So which do you choose? You have all the comprehension that Adam and Eve had.Here, let me put it in a more direct comparison to the situation in which Adam and Eve found themselves.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?

---

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.