God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Ryantology]

No it’s not. One being is the creator of the other therefore the first being owns the other. It’s a question of ownership, not power.

The basis for who is owned and who owns is the relative power of the two parties. Let's stop pretending like you aren't entirely aware of that.

God has the right to destroy his creatures because He owns them, I do not have the right to destroy an innocent person even if I have the might and means to do it because I do not own that person.

Ah, so, if I am able to force you into a position of being my property, nothing I choose to do to you is wrong or immoral.

Ironically, in a purely material and natural Universe might would make right. Only in a Christian ethic is that not the case.

You probably believe what you're saying and that fills me with pity.

You must be confusing me with someone else because that’s not how I argue at all.

You're right, it must be another guy named Statler Waldorf, who uses a coincidentally identical avatar and signature.

[Statler Waldorf]

The basis for who is owned and who owns is the relative power of the two parties. Let's stop pretending like you aren't entirely aware of that.

No it’s not; it’s the fact that the first party created the second. Let’s stop pretending you do not know that.

Ah, so, if I am able to force you into a position of being my property, nothing I choose to do to you is wrong or immoral.

It’d be impossible for you to ever do that because God owns us both and nothing you can do will change that.

You probably believe what you're saying and that fills me with pity.

If God does not exist then why does might not make right? This will be interesting.

You're right, it must be another guy named Statler Waldorf, who uses a coincidentally identical avatar and signature.

Well unless you can point me to a specific example I’ll have to conclude that you are just whistling Dixie as usual.

[Chad32]

It just struck me recently. If Adam and Eve were made to be perfect, why were they even capable of making a mistake? If perfect people are capable of making mistakes, then why is perfection such a big deal?

[Ryantology]

No it’s not; it’s the fact that the first party created the second. Let’s stop pretending you do not know that.

And the 'created' qualifier is the power gap which justifies any harm the creator desires to inflict upon the creation. You repeatedly insist that the creation has no rights in this scenario, which is a statement demonstrating your opinion of the proper behavior of the less powerful.

It’d be impossible for you to ever do that because God owns us both and nothing you can do will change that.

Since you wouldn't have any right to even breathe my oxygen if you were my physical property, I suppose your god would have to take up any objections with me personally. I hear he's not much into that sort of thing these days.

If God does not exist then why does might not make right? This will be interesting.

Might would objectively make right no more or less in the absence of Christianity. I just don't know how you can believe "God has the right to destroy us because he made us" and "Christianity is not might makes right" simultaneously without having an aneurysm.

You're right, it must be another guy named Statler Waldorf, who uses a coincidentally identical avatar and signature.

Well unless you can point me to a specific example I’ll have to conclude that you are just whistling Dixie as usual.

A comprehensive list of examples can be found here.

But this poe using your name and regalia is so good that I simply can't tell the two of you apart.

[Esquilax]

Can I just ask, what is the logic behind the "I created you, therefore I own you" position? It seems like a total non sequitur to me.

[Ryantology]

Can I just ask, what is the logic behind the "I created you, therefore I own you" position? It seems like a total non sequitur to me.

Whatever the logic is, just remember that "God has the right to destroy his creatures because He owns them" is pretty much totally not the same thing as "might makes right", if you close your eyes and try real hard.

[Tonus]

It just struck me recently. If Adam and Eve were made to be perfect, why were they even capable of making a mistake? If perfect people are capable of making mistakes, then why is perfection such a big deal?

I don't think the Bible defines perfection very specifically. Does it mean that you'd never miss a free throw, ever? Or does it simply mean that your body is working at some unknown level of peak efficiency? Or does it mean that you have full control over your subconscious thought, and therefore a far higher degree of control over your actions and decisions? Dunno.

In any event, the story doesn't describe that they ate the fruit by accident, but as a clear and willful choice. Eve accepted the serpent's lie, but she knew that she was eating the fruit that god had warned them not to eat. The ability to freely choose any action allowed them to make bad decisions, or mistakes as it were.

[Mister Agenda]

SW, sorry not to reply to your response to me in full. The gist of your position seems so like circular reasoning and presupposition to me that I can't fathom a way to interpret it otherwise. If you're a presuppositionalist there's no point in trying to reason with you, you abandoned reason entirely when you decided it's okay to take assuming you're right as your axiom. That's a rabbit hole, and I don't see anything rational to be gained by following you down it.

Besides, you apparently believe we all secretly agree with you anyway, and what's the point of having a discussion with someone like that?

[John V]

What do you mean by 'a reasonable result'?

One which reasonably explains the actions in the account.

What I was wondering is why Eve so readily accepted the contradictory claims of the serpent, and why Adam appears to have just as readily accepted the fruit from Eve.

As noted, we're not given their thoughts, and as you agreed such thoughts could reasonably explain their actions.

Also note that the creation of the entire universe is covered in about a page. These accounts are not intended to be exhaustive. We're left, probably intentionally, to contemplate these things.

Paul claims that Eve was deceived, but the deception apparently was no more sophisticated than "nuh-uh." Adam wasn't deceived, perhaps because it wasn't necessary-- just handing him the fruit was sufficient. It makes it seem as if god made little or no impression on the two, that they so easily turned against him.

Did you ever consider that Adam, not being deceived, was taking an intentional stance with Eve out of love for her and/or fear of being alone?

It was, in their case. They demonstrated their rejection of god through an action that had very specific (and final) consequences.

No, they still had time to consider the situation and change their understanding of it.

If they did, it appears to have been fear. It doesn't make sense that fear would be the only --or the primary-- emotion they would associate with god, but it's the only one that I can recognize in the story.

First, fear of god is the beginning of wisdom.

Second, if you focused on an episode in any relationship in which someone is found to have done wrong, it may seem as though fear were the total of the relationship.

[Statler Waldorf]

And the 'created' qualifier is the power gap which justifies any harm the creator desires to inflict upon the creation. You repeatedly insist that the creation has no rights in this scenario, which is a statement demonstrating your opinion of the proper behavior of the less powerful.

Is this really too much for you to grasp? The creator has the right over the created. Scripture is clear that this distinction is the reason God has the right to do with us as He pleases. I realize as an atheist you naturally gravitate towards a simple “might makes right” system of morality but this is far more sophisticated and internally consistent than that.

Since you wouldn't have any right to even breathe my oxygen if you were my physical property, I suppose your god would have to take up any objections with me personally. I hear he's not much into that sort of thing these days.

He’d have an eternity to do so with you, that’s a long time.

Might would objectively make right no more or less in the absence of Christianity. I just don't know how you can believe "God has the right to destroy us because he made us" and "Christianity is not might makes right" simultaneously without having an aneurysm.

Nice attempt at deflecting the question. In a purely natural Universe why would might not make right?

A comprehensive list of examples can be found here.

That’s me, but where did I use the argument, “Well you cannot prove a negative so God exists”? I need a specific example. Me thinks you cannot provide one because you do not know what you’re talking about.

Can I just ask, what is the logic behind the "I created you, therefore I own you" position? It seems like a total non sequitur to me.

How is that a non-sequitur? We use the exact same reasoning daily, Walt Disney owns Mickey Mouse. Makes perfect sense.

Whatever the logic is, just remember that "God has the right to destroy his creatures because He owns them" is pretty much totally not the same thing as "might makes right", if you close your eyes and try real hard.

It’s not the same thing. The Nazis had power over the Jews but they did not create them or own them. It’s laughable you cannot understand the distinction there. Do you really just run around all day thinking that you own anyone you are stronger than? Do the police own you? Does America own France?

SW, sorry not to reply to your response to me in full. The gist of your position seems so like circular reasoning and presupposition to me that I can't fathom a way to interpret it otherwise.

Presupposition is not the same thing as circular reasoning so you’ll have to be more specific as to which I am invoking.

If you're a presuppositionalist there's no point in trying to reason with you, you abandoned reason entirely when you decided it's okay to take assuming you're right as your axiom. That's a rabbit hole, and I don't see anything rational to be gained by following you down it.

Convenient. Everyone has axioms and there is nothing irrational about having them as long as they lead to a coherent and consistent conceptual scheme.

Besides, you apparently believe we all secretly agree with you anyway, and what's the point of having a discussion with someone like that?

Everyone knows God exists that’s correct (Romans 1), I cannot figure out why you seem so surprised that you’re debating a Christian who actually believes what the Bible says. I do not see how that makes discussion pointless however. It’s a shame because you are one of the more enjoyable posters to engage with on here.

-