The first 3 chapters of Genesis

By way of addendum to post 237 One can know there are unpleasant consequences without knowing something is right or wrong. Evidence elsewhere might inform a person that the choice to try something out, say walking into a lampost - will bring unpleasant consequences - all without any sense that it is right or wrong to do so. From our perspective we see God as having given a Commandment but they didn't necessarily have to see it so: a commandment if seen as such would require a sense of being able to disobey it. Disobedience requires a sense of knowing right from wrong.Pre-fall the situation is better described as the commandment being (in their eyes) a direction given from he who had dominion over them and which it was natural for them to follow. Like it is natural for a horse (who is under dominion) to respond to the leading of a bit.Had a knowledge of right and wrong NOT been something that arose out of NOT following the directive then they would NOT have had a sense of being punished (no more than an animal has that sense). They would have taken his action as a natural consequence of not following the directive given them. But because they now (post-fall) knew right from wrong they now knew that it wasn't just consequence they were receiving but punishment. The sense of being punished only arises when one knows right from wrong.This seems apparent from Eves response to the serpents temptation. She talks not of right and wrong but of consequence. The serpent talks of consequence too. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Yes. No need. I got it, finally.Jar is also saying that their being punished makes no sense in that it makes God out to be a jerk, for Adam and Eve could not know that they should not disobey God. And since God is not a jerk, obviously there is another, more allegorical, meaning involved. All we have to do is look at little harder and we will find it. And Jar has no doubt found it. And no doubt it fits in perfectly with his modernized version of Christianity.

Wrong. You still don't get it. You really are as thick as a brick. Jar is saying that Adam and Eve were punished. The punishment--not being able to eat of the Tree of Life. Jar says they were punished. Not that the punishment doesn't make sense, but that your interpretation of the punishment doesn't make sense. as percy said, sheesh.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I don't say that is the punishment. Guess I am having troubles explaining. Know just how they felt.The punishments are laid out in Genesis 3:

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

By way of clarification then... Jar says that they had no way of knowing right from wrong. It was in this state they chose. And because they chose they then (after the fact) became aware they had done wrong and then God punished them for doing a wrong they had no way of knowing they were doing. This makes, as Robin says, God out to be a jerkThick as a brick or confused with good reason?{AbE} Compare with the top quote. They disobey even though they are not capable of disobeyingEdited by iano, : No reason given.

seeing as how I got the punishment wrong, no big deal. my point is, Robin's still not got--Jar does think A and E were punished. I honestly don't care if it makes God out to be a jerk (I was just trying to explain what Jar is saying--got it wrong, but for the critical part).God did punish A and E--no one doubts this, including Jar. (one last time for robin)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

And my point is that when a poster puts up a series of bewildering contradictions ones mind can get befuddled about what is being said. Were Adam and Eve - before they knew right and wrong capable of obeying/disobeying. Jar says yes this time and no anotherIts a bit more complicated than thick as a brick.

No, jar never says that they were capable of obeying until after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The reason for this misunderstanding, kuresi, is that Jar likes to make coy, cryptic remarks. He likes to insinuate an idea without committing himself to it. I suppose he thinks this is how one is supposed to argue.

but you have to admit--jar does think they were punished (and he ain't bein' coy or cryptic on that point)

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

His eating IS the disobedience. After happens...well...afterwards. You can't have after the act during the act.

For a while he was, particularly on the other thread that I took some quotes from.

Yes. It is disobedience. Please read what I write. They were incapable of obeying until after they had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

past doesn't matteragree or disagree:
Jar thinks that A and E were punished

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

It is a valid way to argue if it is a war you are intent on winning. Call it Gorilla tactics However if one was willing to accept the possibility of defeat (ie: put ones life( worldview) on the line) then one would tend to engage in open, winner-takes-all pitched battle