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?

Personally I really don't like to discuss issues in the 'faith and belief', 'Bible inerrancy' and similar philosophical rooms, but I'll play for a moment.

quote:

---

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?

---

--What if you took the shotgun out of the playroom, your child would turn into a robot? My question stems from the apparent fact that as long as there is free will, there will always be love and hate. I don't think God made shotguns at creation, but he made materials from which humans want to make shotguns.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

I think Crashfrog may be talking about leaving a loaded Tree of Knowledge in the children's playroom.

quote:

---

I think Crashfrog may be talking about leaving a loaded Tree of Knowledge in the children's playroom.

---

--This only increases the pertinence of my question, if you took it out of the playpen, your child would turn into a robot, mindlessly doing what its parents want him to. You could say that your child still is doing what he wants to do, but disallowing him or her to freely access any one thing that is physically possible places an artificial constraint on the child's living. Similarly, if God took away anything which is evil, or could potentially be evil, we would not have a free will. I think.Cheers,
-Chris Grose[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-10-2004]

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]

quote:

---

Can we assume, then, that you leave dangerous tools/weapons around your children?

---

--But is this a good analog to what God supposedly did in Genesis? I would hardly call a tree of knowledge a weapon.

quote:

---

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.

---

--I would hardly call bacteria evil. There is a difference here, bacteria is objective, what takes place in our mind is not.

quote:

---

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.

---

--?? I would think that if you remove evil, you can only 'choose' good. So then, if you remove the choice of evil, are you not putting a constraint on 'free will'?Cheers,
-Chris Grose
OYSI

TCIs the tree of knowledge of good and evil not like a loaded gun? A weapon is a definition given to describe that which can cause harm is it not? The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a weapon in that the warning given for eating of the fruit was threat of death.
I have argued about this in other threads concerning how much free will is inherent in a situation of imperfect knowledge faced by adam and eve before they ate of the fruit that would allow the knowledge.God ceated evil therefore the results of evil in the world rest in the domain of his responsability.

---

"The Puritans. Our ancestors. People so uptight the English kicked them out. How fucking anal do you have to be for the English to say 'get the fuck out!'"
~~ Robin Williams[This message has been edited by sidelined, 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.

Just a quick point. They were told by God to not touch the tree. They understood language, and they understood the commandment of God. It's not like Adam and Eve were young children. Remember, Eve knew that God had told them not to touch it - when the serpent was talking her into it.
So the warning was there, unlike a loaded gun a child has not been told about. I suppose you could say it was a waiting loaded gun that an adult WAS warned about.

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.

Sorry to have to disagree (I think this is a first).

quote:

---

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.

---

They didn't have to know about sin or good and evil. They were clearly told that if they ate of the tree they would die. While such admonitions to children don't always stop them, it's one of the more popular tactics parents use to some effect. Well... maybe just death, but pain and/or death.The Serpent tricked Eve because for some reason she forgot it was the eating and not the touching of the tree that would kill them. When that didn't kill her, the serpent convinced her everything he said might be a lie. So she ate the fruit.I suppose this would be analogous to parents telling their kids not to even try drugs because they'll go insane or die with one puff. The kids see their friends do not go insane, or die, and so start trying it themselves.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is not quite accurate. I do not understand good or evil, except as useful catchphrases for people that like to stay in power. They are certainly not consistent in use, generally boiling down to I like or I dislike.And for the current analogy being used, is a gun good or evil?Dangerous/not dangerous, or healthy/unhealthy might be better terms. I believe those are understood by everyone except infants and the insane (and even the insane understand them to some extent).I don't mean to rain on your parade as I think I agree with the point you are really driving at, it's just that the examples/analogies being used are a little off.

---

holmes

I think good and evil could easely be defined as:what would and wont benifit the most peope in the most positive way, at any given time.Or something along those lines.The tree wasn't benifiting anyone. It was a liability.

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]

quote:

---

I think good and evil could easely be defined as: what would and wont benifit the most peope in the most positive way, at any given time.

---

Well that may be what you think, but that is a teleological (specifically utilitarian) morality and there are many that do not agree with that kind of morality at all.Were you for or against the Iraq War? Bush's used two different claims, deonotological and teleological in order to bust Saddam's chops. The fact is that the Iraqi people are certainly better off in the long run (or at least the hypothetical long run) without Saddam. Does that make it good that we did it?Frankly I think the entire world would be better off if Bush was gone, but that doesn't mean I think his murder would be good. I don't think it would be right.Teleological moralities are always compelling because they look good on paper, but they are hardly what people can live with full time.

quote:

---

The tree wasn't benifiting anyone. It was a liability.

---

Perhaps it was benefiting someone. Since the serpent was there, maybe it was the only food the serpent could live on. Or maybe God eats from it. (FYI All of this is assuming a literalness to the tale which I do not believe). That would be consistent since the tree of life which grants immortality is nearby.The only thing the tale tells us is that bad things happen if humans eat from it.

---

holmes