Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and Good Parenting
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 61 (77943)
01-12-2004 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Silent H
01-12-2004 12:16 AM


By the way, do you feel this responsibility should extend to trying to stop people from smoking?
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.)
But that is different than having to make sure that even out of eyeshot, someone will be incapable of making a fatal error.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Silent H, posted 01-12-2004 12:16 AM Silent H has not replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 61 (78223)
01-13-2004 1:22 PM


An interjection
I was discouraged to see so much presumption in this thread. I realize that I may be drifting off topic slightly here so I will make my comments brief. My grievance is with the take on the tree that is being presented, and I must state a few things in clarification.
First - We can not know the original purpose for the tree of life in the garden. we only know that God placed it there and Gave some instructions about it. Whatever the original purpose was, it was not achieved because the fruit of the tree was eaten before such time as God saw fit to allow such activity. Perhaps, and this is an OPINION, there would have been a future point where Adam and Eve could have partaken. So, among many other possibilities, I am suggesting a "not now" statement from God.
Second - The Bible clearly states that Adam was not to eat of the tree. It was Eve who misrepresented God and said the tree could not be touched. If you review the passage in Genesis you will see that there is no restriction on touching the tree given to Adam. This makes sense since he is given responsibility of keeping the garden, this would include trimming, and would be required to care for the tree of knowledge.
Third - Although this has been stated I feel it deserves reitteration: it was not the fruit that caused man's fall. It was disobedience to the command God gave. The only reason eating the fruit was harmful was because God said it was.
So when you are dealing with this responsibility issue there must be some clearly defined code of what is right in wrong. In this case, God had the authority to set an absolute standard and expect mankind to keep it and punish makind if the disobeyed. Again, this is meant to clarify the use of the passage in Genesis dealing with the fall of man, not to steer the discussion of the main point of this thread.
Russ

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2004 3:24 PM apostolos has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 61 (78242)
01-13-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by apostolos
01-13-2004 1:22 PM


I was discouraged to see so much presumption in this thread.
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.
We can not know the original purpose for the tree of life in the garden.
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.
The Bible clearly states that Adam was not to eat of the tree.
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.
The only reason eating the fruit was harmful was because God said it was.
Laying the culpability squarely on his shoulders.
So when you are dealing with this responsibility issue there must be some clearly defined code of what is right in wrong.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by apostolos, posted 01-13-2004 1:22 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by apostolos, posted 01-14-2004 10:43 AM crashfrog has replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 61 (78400)
01-14-2004 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
01-13-2004 3:24 PM


Clarifying my clarification
First, I did not intend for my statement of being discouraged over presumption to be directed at you Crashfrog, and furthermore I don't understand why you chose to take it personally.
Also, I thought it would be understood but it seems to not have been, I made my second point to correct an earlier statement. Someone else had posted that Adam was not to touch the tree of knowledge. This is incorrect. The command given by God is not to eat of that tree. Touching it was fair game, and, as I already said, makes perfect sense when you consider the responsibility God placed on Adam to keep the garden.
There is much that you said that I disagree with and find to be, plain and simple, an erroneous way of looking at scripture. But that is not my point. My point is to clarify certain facts pertaining to the specific point of the Tree of Knowledge. This is only because it was brought up and equated to leaving a shotgun in the living room, which, by the way, is in no way equivalent to what took place in scripture.
So as to not be a detractor from the main conversation, let me conclude this post with a response to the previous post.
But how could two persons lacking knowledge of right and wrong be expected to know what is right?
This is an assumption plain and simple. There is nothing in scripture that suggests that Adam and Eve had no capacity for differentiating between good and evil. In fact, the discourse Eve has with the serpent shows that they were able to distinguish between the two. Without getting verbose let me just say that her choice was something that was pleasing to the eye instead of obedience to God's command. This is the issue of all sin: choosing self-rule over obedience to God's command.
Russ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2004 3:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:53 AM apostolos has not replied
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2004 5:27 PM apostolos has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 35 of 61 (78405)
01-14-2004 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by apostolos
01-14-2004 10:43 AM


Sorry, I made the error of saying "to not touch the tree". Ofcourse you are correct, I should have scrutineered more, he said to "not eat of..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by apostolos, posted 01-14-2004 10:43 AM apostolos has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2004 11:01 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 36 of 61 (78409)
01-14-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 10:53 AM


Hey, what am I, chopped liver? I made that same comment in a much earlier post. Being an athiest I think I oughta get some credit for having gotten that part right... and taken other athiests to task for getting it wrong (I stood up for Xians).
Ah well...

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 10:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 11:09 AM Silent H has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 37 of 61 (78412)
01-14-2004 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Silent H
01-14-2004 11:01 AM


Oops, sorry Sherlock, you daredevil scrutineer of mass intelligence, billowing your thoughts of Atheistic potential
(I stood up for Xians).
Well boil my heart in Jimmy Johnson over revs, how did I miss this supreme intelligent response from the Sherlock ....blow me Ralph will the wiz ever bother to read any posts but his own.
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-14-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2004 11:01 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Silent H, posted 01-14-2004 1:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 38 of 61 (78438)
01-14-2004 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by mike the wiz
01-14-2004 11:09 AM


heheheh... thanks mike. I deserved that exact response.

holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by mike the wiz, posted 01-14-2004 11:09 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 61 (78472)
01-14-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by apostolos
01-14-2004 10:43 AM


First, I did not intend for my statement of being discouraged over presumption to be directed at you Crashfrog, and furthermore I don't understand why you chose to take it personally.
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.
Also, I thought it would be understood but it seems to not have been, I made my second point to correct an earlier statement. Someone else had posted that Adam was not to touch the tree of knowledge. This is incorrect.
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.
There is nothing in scripture that suggests that Adam and Eve had no capacity for differentiating between good and evil.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by apostolos, posted 01-14-2004 10:43 AM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by apostolos, posted 01-20-2004 1:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 61 (79566)
01-20-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
01-14-2004 5:27 PM


Any other takers?
Crashfrog (and anyone else),
I was honestly waiting for someone else to step up to bat on this one. I had not intended, with my interjection, to jump into the middle of this thing. Since no one else is piping up yet I will respond. But not now. Soon. And I hope some others will have a voice in the matter in the mean time.
Russ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 01-14-2004 5:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 61 (79616)
01-20-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
01-09-2004 11:18 PM


Shoot the snake!
Crashfrog,
You ask,
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?
Yes, if my children were trained to handle shotguns, and there was a danger of a dangerous snake coming around to kill them, that could only be stopped with a shotgun. Adam and Eve were created to serve Jehovah in His war with Satan, and one way we always win battles there is to resist temptation. All living creatures know happiness, if at all, as the emotion associated with being where you are adapted or supposed to be, doing what you are adapted or supposed to do.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 01-09-2004 11:18 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 61 (81494)
01-29-2004 12:59 PM


Crash,
I know the basic material of what I was going to post but was stewing over the structure. I only post now to say I have been away for a little bit and is this thread even still going?

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2004 4:26 PM apostolos has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 61 (81529)
01-29-2004 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by apostolos
01-29-2004 12:59 PM


I know the basic material of what I was going to post but was stewing over the structure. I only post now to say I have been away for a little bit and is this thread even still going?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by apostolos, posted 01-29-2004 12:59 PM apostolos has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by apostolos, posted 01-30-2004 10:42 AM crashfrog has replied

  
apostolos
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 61 (81649)
01-30-2004 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
01-29-2004 4:26 PM


a last note
As per my post in "The evolutionistic faith" I will not be around to carry this discussion out. Let me just state my position and hope that will generate further study into the matter.
From the text of Genesis it is clear to see that Adam and Eve were fully capable of knowing that the choice to eat the fruit was both wrong and harmful. However, they chose their own way instead of the way God had designed for them (basic definition of sin). Any analogies with a shotgun must incorporate a party that can distinguish the potential dangers of said weapon to be considered close to representing the Genesis account. Thats my position based on the text of the preserved Word of God.
Russ

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 01-29-2004 4:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by sidelined, posted 01-30-2004 11:19 AM apostolos has not replied
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 01-30-2004 1:36 PM apostolos has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 45 of 61 (81655)
01-30-2004 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by apostolos
01-30-2004 10:42 AM


Re: a last note
apostolos
From the text of Genesis it is clear to see that Adam and Eve were fully capable of knowing that the choice to eat the fruit was both wrong and harmful
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
If they were capable of knowing it was wrong then two questions arise.One what is the effect of eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
Two Why did the serpent have to explain what the effect would be?
One other question comes to mind in this. Why does God make a serpent capable of deceipt and still claim that Adam and Eve are possesed of free will? We cannot tempt him but he can tempt us?

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by apostolos, posted 01-30-2004 10:42 AM apostolos has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024