God and Good Parenting

From Why creationists panic: My counter-question: How would you describe parents that would leave a loaded shotgun in the middle of their children's perfect playroom? Is that good parenting behavior to you?

Can we assume, then, that you leave dangerous tools/weapons around your children?Why is it then that when we expose our children to danger, we're rightfully prosecuted for negligence?I find these "evil = free will" arguments lame at best. Humans have been trying to eliminate evil for all of history, as a result we live longer, healthier, and happier lives. There's certainly no sign that we're losing free will as a result.Anyway how much free will can you excercize after your sibling has accidentally blown your head off? Evil restricts free will,by definition. It doesn't increase it.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2004]

The Tree that causes death and brings sin into the world? I'd say that's pretty dangerous. A circular saw can build a house but also take off an arm. But evil has victims. What about my free will? Why does your one choice about good or evil outweigh every single choice I'd get to make if I hadn't been your victim? There's more choices than good vs. evil. Infinitely many. Good isn't just one choice, it's an infinite number of choices in itself.

Ah, but what they didn't understand was that disobeying a command would be a sin - because there wasn't sin, and they didn't know the difference between good and evil.People who don't know the difference between good and evil, in our society, are either children or insane, and in neither case are they held responsible for their actions. It's difficult to see a human, a few days old, who doesn't understand good or evil, as anything but a child.

How would that be clear in a world with no death? How are Adam and Eve supposed to know what "die" means? "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. Does it matter? It's a dangerous item, capable of causing death.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.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. It's my responsibility to take reasonable precautions against your willful stupidity, as it was God's responsibility in this case.

Where the hell is DrkBeloved? He's the one that had me start this thread in the first place...[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-11-2004]

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.

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.

No, because I believe there's advantages to smoking. None that outweigh the health risks, but I don't believe that everybody who smokes does so because it's their Stupid Day. (What advantages? It sure makes you look cooler. Check out a Chow-Yun Fat movie sometime - one of his Hong Kong movies, anyway.) I'm not saying we have to idiot-proof the world. But I think we can expect a reasonable level of foresight from people in regards to their dangerous tools, possessions, or property. At the very least, people doing stupid things with your tools puts your tools at risk, and that's something to care about, right?You can't stop some people from digging their own graves. But honestly I don't know how a moral person could live with themselves if they knowingly sold them the shovel.

This isn't the first time I've been accused of "presumption" in regards to this topic. Personally I don't see anything presumptious about making reasonable inferences from the "data". In truth I think the only reason a person wouldn't attempt these inferences is because of intellectual cowardice - you're petrified of where this reasoning goes, and the only rebuttal you have is "I don't like where this goes, but I don't know why it's wrong, so clearly stuff about God must eb beyond my comprehension." How convenient.And of course, totally wrong. Remember that, according to your own Bible, you have the same sense about good and evil that God does. Therefore your own moral sense can be relied upon to judge the actions of God as they are presented in the Bible.Now, it's entirely possible that what's in the Bible isn't exactly what happened. But until God appears to give us his side, it's all we have to go on. True. I may not know the original purpose of the shotgun in my child's playroom, but do I need to? It doesn't matter what the purpose was - what matters is the results: death. And God is culpable because there's a reasonable expectation that he should have forseen (not even using his magic forsight!) what would have happened. You haven't addressed the fact that obeying or disobeying God is a moral choice. And Adam and Eve, prior to the Knowledge of Good and Evil, are incapable of moral choice. Laying the culpability squarely on his shoulders. Of course. God's own standard, in this case. But how could two persons lacking knowledge of right and wrong be expected to know what is right?

Well, it's largely my thread, and certainly I chose the direction of conversation, so I guess I feel responsible for its content. If you didn't mean it personally, then I didn't mean to jump down your throat about it. This seems like a quibble. No matter how it actually went down, several things are true:1) Adam and Eve did not have knowledge of good and evil, making them like children;
2) The Tree of Knowledge means their death;
3) God's responsible for it's presence in the Garden;
4) If a human parent left a death-dealing item with their children, unsupervised, we'd find it morally abhorrent and criminally negligent. But somehow believers give God a pass. I don't see how you can say that. It's the only conclusion from Scripture:

quote:

---

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

---

...implying that they were not, at the time, like God in that sense - IOW they lacked the knowledge of good and evil. God even admits as much:

quote:

---

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil

---

You can hardly become what you already were. It's pretty clear - the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil does exactly what we would expect it to - impart the knowledge of good and evil on those who did not already posess it. It boggles the mind that you would suggest the Scripture implies otherwise.

If you have something to say, I'll read it. Truth be told I hadn't realized Stephen had posted in the thread (though I don't see much worthy of response; apparently he lives in a world where it's appropriate to hand shotguns to people who don't know right from wrong, and how do you argue with that?)It's not terminal, I guess. Your post will be appreciated.

By what textual evidence do you support this conclusion? It's hardly obvious to me.

Babies can be extremely intelligent. That doesn't make them any more able to make moral decisions for themselves.Haven't you ever heard the term "idiot savant"? Paul Erdos couldn't even tie his shoes. (not that I'm referring to him as an idiot savant.)