(May 16, 2017 at 10:01 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 9:26 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: What was the purpose of forbidding Adam from eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil if he already had that knowledge? Your definition of intentional is quite odd and based on what you need to be true rather than the word's actual meaning.

But the ability to disobey (which they obviously had) is not the same as being made aware of the good and bad within yourself (the loss of innocence). I used 'intentional' because it was not an accident--they actually discussed that God said not to eat it and chose to do it anyway.

I understand the difference you're making and think it is a fair one. It just leaves me with a big question. If the evil was already in Adam and Eve then that has to be the way god created them. Are you ready to say that god is the creator of evil? Are you then ready to justify god punishing them for manifesting what he created in them?

It's not about free will. I don't derive my child of free will by not giving him a button that will blow up the world and leaving him to choose.

(May 16, 2017 at 8:46 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 10:01 am)SteveII Wrote: But the ability to disobey (which they obviously had) is not the same as being made aware of the good and bad within yourself (the loss of innocence). I used 'intentional' because it was not an accident--they actually discussed that God said not to eat it and chose to do it anyway.

I understand the difference you're making and think it is a fair one. It just leaves me with a big question. If the evil was already in Adam and Eve then that has to be the way god created them. Are you ready to say that god is the creator of evil? Are you then ready to justify god punishing them for manifesting what he created in them?

It's not about free will. I don't derive my child of free will by not giving him a button that will blow up the world and leaving him to choose.

I wouldn't say there was hidden evil already within Adam and Eve. It was potential evil because with free will, the potential will always be there regardless of whether one choices to do wrong. Once they disobeyed, the understood a lot more about that then they did before "there eyes were opened" and they understood the the difference between good and evil. 

Isn't the tree just a metaphor for the act of disobedience (I'm not saying there wasn't a tree)? I don't think the tree was magical, it just represented the only choice to disobey God in those circumstances.

There's a "hidden evil" in the notion of disobedience -as- evil, but more hilariously than that, I don;t know about you...but when my children disobey me..........casting a curse on them and the ground they walk on seems less than appropriate?

Why? Because God is modeled after the kings of that age. God as king of all had all the rights because that was just the way it was. In a democracy, nobody would think up a lone god who had all the power because that's not the political model in play. Ultimately, God is just a political figure, having certain rights and privileges. It's like the legal fiction of the corporation. We don't give God rights because he is a person. He's an abstract, and the foundation of his rights is equally abstract. He can kill. Why? Because he's the creator. Creator is a role, it says what he does, not what he is. God is good. According to an independent standard? No, again it's a role. It explains what he does rather than what he is.

God is nothing more than the ultimate king figure. He owns all the land and makes all the rules. Not because of what he is, that's just his role.

(May 17, 2017 at 10:12 am)SteveII Wrote:

(May 16, 2017 at 8:46 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: I understand the difference you're making and think it is a fair one. It just leaves me with a big question. If the evil was already in Adam and Eve then that has to be the way god created them. Are you ready to say that god is the creator of evil? Are you then ready to justify god punishing them for manifesting what he created in them?

It's not about free will. I don't derive my child of free will by not giving him a button that will blow up the world and leaving him to choose.

I wouldn't say there was hidden evil already within Adam and Eve. It was potential evil because with free will, the potential will always be there regardless of whether one choices to do wrong. Once they disobeyed, the understood a lot more about that then they did before "there eyes were opened" and they understood the the difference between good and evil. 

Isn't the tree just a metaphor for the act of disobedience (I'm not saying there wasn't a tree)? I don't think the tree was magical, it just represented the only choice to disobey God in those circumstances.

If evil is inherent in free will then there can be no free will in heaven.

No matter how you interpret reality, you cannot have an omnipotent, omniscient god who is not responsible for that reality. Nor is there justice in punishing Adam for doing what he was created to do.

The problem is, you're trying to take a book that was written at a time when people were at the mercy of nature and blood thirsty gods were revered, and shoehorn it into a time when that is no longer he case. As a result, you have to come up with all kinds of explanations. None of which really justifies what has already been written.

(May 18, 2017 at 9:34 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(May 17, 2017 at 10:12 am)SteveII Wrote: I wouldn't say there was hidden evil already within Adam and Eve. It was potential evil because with free will, the potential will always be there regardless of whether one choices to do wrong. Once they disobeyed, the understood a lot more about that then they did before "there eyes were opened" and they understood the the difference between good and evil. 

Isn't the tree just a metaphor for the act of disobedience (I'm not saying there wasn't a tree)? I don't think the tree was magical, it just represented the only choice to disobey God in those circumstances.

If evil is inherent in free will then there can be no free will in heaven. [1]

No matter how you interpret reality, you cannot have an omnipotent, omniscient god who is not responsible for that reality. Nor is there justice in punishing Adam for doing what he was created to do. [2]

The problem is, you're trying to take a book that was written at a time when people were at the mercy of nature and blood thirsty gods were revered, and shoehorn it into a time when that is no longer he case. As a result, you have to come up with all kinds of  explanations. None of which really justifies what has already been written. [3]

1. Free will does not logically mean evil--just the potential. I believe that being in the actual presence of God makes any possible choice of evil impossible because of the situation not because of a logical impossibility.. I don't know though--just a theory developed to answer the question.

2. God is very much responsible for allowing us to choose (because without that ability, we cannot love anything--including him). Adam was punished, yes, but the real question was it worth creating him (including knowledge of his eventual fall and punishment)? I think it is clear that God would say yes to that. Adam would say yes to that (I certainly am glad of it personally). To flip it around, would you say it would have been better to be created without free will--which would include no ability to love? What would be the point? 

3. I don't think that's the case. When you don't take it/discuss it piecemeal, the basic doctrines fit together without much trouble.

(May 18, 2017 at 10:18 am)SteveII Wrote: To flip it around, would you say it would have been better to be created without free will--which would include no ability to love? What would be the point? 

They aren't mutually exclusive.

(May 18, 2017 at 12:23 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 10:18 am)SteveII Wrote: To flip it around, would you say it would have been better to be created without free will--which would include no ability to love? What would be the point? 

They aren't mutually exclusive.

Explain how in the world we could love someone without the ability to choose to love them. The word would have no meaning.

It would mean exactly what it does now.   I've never chosen to love a person in my life? Is that what your experience of love has been? That would be a neat trick.

(May 18, 2017 at 5:03 pm)Khemikal Wrote: It would mean exactly what it does now.   I've never chosen to love a person in my life?  Is that what your experience of love has been?  That would be a neat trick.

Is he honestly arguing that if love is not freely chosen it's not love?. Is honestly saying that feelings of love (not the act of pursuing said love ) is a choice? lol . Even if we grant this extremist notion. It would only mean the point of life is not love .