Do commandments and threats negate free will?

[Syne]

The eating of the tree of knowledge was the so called sin.
The known penalty was --though shalt surely die.

The imposed penalty and the new law that no one knew of, except perhaps for the talking snake, who seemed to know God had left some consequences out, a sin of omission to me.

God spoke of one penalty, death, yet arbitrarily added on a bunch more after the fact.
Quite immoral that.

Would you do that to your child?

And where EXACTLY do you find the new penalty applied to anyone not forewarned? A&E were not retroactively penalized. What "bunch more"? Be specific.

If you're talking about the ground being cursed and so forth, these were the direct consequences of becoming aware of the value judgments of good and bad, nothing more. Before such knowledge A&E were simply blissfully unaware. Nothing changed but their understanding.

 

[Greatest I am]

And where EXACTLY do you find the new penalty applied to anyone not forewarned? A&E were not retroactively penalized. What "bunch more"? Be specific.

If you're talking about the ground being cursed and so forth, these were the direct consequences of becoming aware of the value judgments of good and bad, nothing more. Before such knowledge A&E were simply blissfully unaware. Nothing changed but their understanding.

That was one of the added on consequences yes.
If the earth was already cursed then God did not have to curse it again.
Thanks for recognizing that he omitted a list of consequences.
Let me add. Openened eyes, being as Gods and women having to kowtow to men.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

That was one of the added on consequences yes.
If the earth was already cursed then God did not have to curse it again.
Thanks for recognizing that he omitted a list of consequences.
Let me add. Openened eyes, being as Gods and women having to kowtow to men.

New awareness of preexisting conditions are not "added" consequences. You need to remember that men wrote the Bible and that, to man newly aware of these conditions, they would seem newly instituted. We also don't get any internal dialogs in Genesis, so the writer may have simply expressed the facts of this new awareness in this manner.

Woman would have been physically subjected to man regardless of any awareness of the fact.

 

[Greatest I am]

New awareness of preexisting conditions are not "added" consequences. You need to remember that men wrote the Bible and that, to man newly aware of these conditions, they would seem newly instituted. We also don't get any internal dialogs in Genesis, so the writer may have simply expressed the facts of this new awareness in this manner.

Woman would have been physically subjected to man regardless of any awareness of the fact.

Check Egyptian history to know just how far from the mark your remark is.

Who was the first recorded God or Goddess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Check Egyptian history to know just how far from the mark your remark is.

Who was the first recorded God or Goddess?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels

What on Earth does that have to do with ANYTHING I said? Or are you just naive enough to think that female rulers somehow trump the very real physical subjection? And what in that link has anything to do with any god/goddess?

Looks like random arm-waving.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

And where EXACTLY do you find the new penalty applied to anyone not forewarned?

How about the birth pains? They were inflicted on Eve as well as all of her descendants, nor were they present before the fruit was eaten. They were a punishment that god added on, probably out of fear.

 

[Syne]

How about the birth pains? They were inflicted on Eve as well as all of her descendants, nor were they present before the fruit was eaten. They were a punishment that god added on, probably out of fear.

And how do you know that? There was no childbirth mentioned prior to the fall. Depending on the version (NIV), this is only an increase in severity. From a strictly evolutionary viewpoint, higher intelligence necessitating a proportionally larger skull is much of what adds to the severity of human childbirth. Seems knowledge of good and evil is a leap in intelligence, being able to make comparative value judgments.

So once again, a direct consequence of the action, not a new and arbitrary penalty.

This is like telling a child they shouldn't touch something hot. They don't yet understand what "getting burned" is. Even telling them it will hurt cannot fully inform them. Once actually burned, should the child deem you immoral for somehow not imparting an understanding only experience of the consequence could impart?

 

[Arioch]

How could a perfect world(i.e. the world before the fall) have pain? There's no mention of pain before that and it seems clear from the bible(take your pick on translations) that the world was fundamentally different "back then".

 

[Greatest I am]

How could a perfect world(i.e. the world before the fall) have pain? There's no mention of pain before that and it seems clear from the bible(take your pick on translations) that the world was fundamentally different "back then".

I agree as pain is evil and we are told in this particular myth that there was nothing evil at that point in time.

If we read some time lapse between Genesis 1 and 2, we see that A & E were told to reproduce in Genesis 1, God's first command, and they would have done so before eating of the tree of knowledge to learn whether it was good to reproduce or not.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

(take your pick on translations) that the world was fundamentally different "back then".

I do not agree with this.

We do things in different ways for sure but they are basically all the same things.

What fundamental difference do you see in man's character?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

How could a perfect world(i.e. the world before the fall) have pain? There's no mention of pain before that and it seems clear from the bible(take your pick on translations) that the world was fundamentally different "back then".

And where, exactly, does it say the world was "perfect"? The only judgment was supposedly God saying it was "good". Pain is evolutionarily good because it is an indicator to avoid harmful things. It serves the purpose of survival intimated by "be fruitful and multiply".

Yes, there's no mention of pain, but there's also no mention of excretion or any of a thousand other things. By your reasoning, if it wasn't mentioned then it must not have existed.

And as I've already said, there's no reason to believe the world itself fundamentally changed, as the story explicitly states a change in awareness which would necessarily alter the perception of the world. What is clear is that the Bible was written for man and from the perspective of man.

I agree as pain is evil and we are told in this particular myth that there was nothing evil at that point in time.

Really? Is pain evil when it aids your survival? Evil is a value judgment man was incapable of prior to the fall, so once again nothing changed but the awareness of man.

If we read some time lapse between Genesis 1 and 2, we see that A & E were told to reproduce in Genesis 1, God's first command, and they would have done so before eating of the tree of knowledge to learn whether it was good to reproduce or not.

You cannot support any significant time lapse between the creation of woman and the fall, as the former happens at the end of Genesis 2 and the latter at the beginning of Genesis 3. You're just grasping at straws trying to affirm your bias.

The first command was to be "fruitful", i.e. productive, which Adam supposedly did by naming all the animals. Prior to the fall, A&E were not immediately titillated by their nudity. It had not yet become the taboo it is today. And just like any human, hunger trumps sexual appetites as a matter of survival. Those who don't eat don't survive to reproduce.

 

[Greatest I am]

And as I've already said, there's no reason to believe the world itself fundamentally changed, as the story explicitly states a change in awareness which would necessarily alter the perception of the world. What is clear is that the Bible was written for man and from the perspective of man.

If written for men then it should not be full of contradictions nor portray an immoral God.

It does.

Really? Is pain evil when it aids your survival?

In terms of the bible, yes.
It shows that God was not forthcoming and did not give man full knowledge of what would hurt him.

I noted above that you downgraded the works of God from perfect to a mere good status. Tsk tsk. God will not be pleased.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

Evil is a value judgment man was incapable of prior to the fall,

Ah. Something we agree on.

If A & E had no conception of what doing evil was, they could not know it was evil to eat of the tree of knowledge or that it was evil to disobey God. This you must agree with thanks to you comment above.

Tell us then why God punished them for doing evil when they, to them, were not doing anything wrong?

You cannot support any significant time lapse between the creation of woman and the fall, as the former happens at the end of Genesis 2 and the latter at the beginning of Genesis 3. You're just grasping at straws trying to affirm your bias.

The first command was to be "fruitful", i.e. productive, which Adam supposedly did by naming all the animals. Prior to the fall, A&E were not immediately titillated by their nudity. It had not yet become the taboo it is today. And just like any human, hunger trumps sexual appetites as a matter of survival. Those who don't eat don't survive to reproduce.

Garbage. My proof. Mosquitoes.

As to the time laps between Adam naming all, the animals and having at Eve.

Are you aware of how many millions if not billions of names that is. Between naming genus, I am sure he had time for reproduction and indeed, would have multitasked. Would you not do so?

I sure would.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

And as I've already said, there's no reason to believe the world itself fundamentally changed, as the story explicitly states a change in awareness which would necessarily alter the perception of the world. What is clear is that the Bible was written for man and from the perspective of man.

If written for men then it should not be full of contradictions nor portray an immoral God.

It does.

You have yet to make a reasonable case for either.

Really? Is pain evil when it aids your survival?

In terms of the bible, yes.
It shows that God was not forthcoming and did not give man full knowledge of what would hurt him.

I noted above that you downgraded the works of God from perfect to a mere good status. Tsk tsk. God will not be pleased.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

How exactly would man know what "hurt" meant prior to the experience of pain? Any god would be fully cognizant of this simple fact.

I "downgraded" nothing. What I did do was keep to the specific context being discussed, i.e. the story in Genesis. But what warning system, other than pain, would be as perfectly suited to ensuring avoidance of counter-survival things? Isn't that exactly why such systems are postulated to have evolved?

Evil is a value judgment man was incapable of prior to the fall,

Ah. Something we agree on.

If A & E had no conception of what doing evil was, they could not know it was evil to eat of the tree of knowledge or that it was evil to disobey God. This you must agree with thanks to you comment above.

Tell us then why God punished them for doing evil when they, to them, were not doing anything wrong?

True. They didn't have any conception of it being "evil", but they did know they were told not to and that it would have definite consequences. You don't need to have any conception of "evil" to understand cause and effect.

God didn't punish them so much as he had already allowed for cause and effect earlier, and he informed them of the only punitive effect.

You cannot support any significant time lapse between the creation of woman and the fall, as the former happens at the end of Genesis 2 and the latter at the beginning of Genesis 3. You're just grasping at straws trying to affirm your bias.

The first command was to be "fruitful", i.e. productive, which Adam supposedly did by naming all the animals. Prior to the fall, A&E were not immediately titillated by their nudity. It had not yet become the taboo it is today. And just like any human, hunger trumps sexual appetites as a matter of survival. Those who don't eat don't survive to reproduce.

Garbage. My proof. Mosquitoes.

As to the time laps between Adam naming all, the animals and having at Eve.

Are you aware of how many millions if not billions of names that is. Between naming genus, I am sure he had time for reproduction and indeed, would have multitasked. Would you not do so?

I sure would.

Mosquito? What EXACTLY is that supposed to "prove"? And where do you find any reference to genus? And this naming was done before Eve.

All just confirmation bias run rampant, making unfounded suppositions to fill in any discrepancy between bias and fact. Whatever you want to believe, man.

 

[Greatest I am]

You have yet to make a reasonable case for either.



How exactly would man know what "hurt" meant prior to the experience of pain? Any god would be fully cognizant of this simple fact.

I "downgraded" nothing. What I did do was keep to the specific context being discussed, i.e. the story in Genesis. But what warning system, other than pain, would be as perfectly suited to ensuring avoidance of counter-survival things? Isn't that exactly why such systems are postulated to have evolved?



True. They didn't have any conception of it being "evil", but they did know they were told not to and that it would have definite consequences.

No God did not. He lied by omission. He mentioned only one consequence and then arbitrarily added on a bunch more. That is immoral and the best way to lose respect for God. Once a lied to, trust is gone.

You don't need to have any conception of "evil" to understand cause and effect.

Irrelevant. It is knowing good and evil that determines culpability. They had no evil intent.
You cannot justify the unjustifiable.

God didn't punish them so much as he had already allowed for cause and effect earlier, and he informed them of the only punitive effect.

See above.
Further, God punished the whole world for the act of our ancients. Are you culpable for A & E?
No you are not.
Neither is anyone else.

Mosquito? What EXACTLY is that supposed to "prove"? And where do you find any reference to genus? And this naming was done before Eve.

All just confirmation bias run rampant, making unfounded suppositions to fill in any discrepancy between bias and fact. Whatever you want to believe, man.

I do not need bias. I have given you the facts and you are the one who gives God a passing grade for things that only an immoral father would do.

If there is any bias, you are the one showing it.

Typical. When one loses a debate, they try to deflect.
Always trying to show the splinter in my eye while ignoring the log in yours.

Be honest or be gone.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Learn to use quotes already.

No God did not. He lied by omission. He mentioned only one consequence and then arbitrarily added on a bunch more. That is immoral and the best way to lose respect for God. Once a lied to, trust is gone.

I've already fully addressed this, so it is either blatant confirmation bias or outright trolling. Notice you've yet to offer any reasoning; you just keep repeating your mantra. I've made the case for causal consequences, which could not be understood without experience. You haven't even tried to engage this argument.

Irrelevant. It is knowing good and evil that determines culpability. They had no evil intent.
You cannot justify the unjustifiable.

You are the only one inferring "evil" in someone doing what they were advised against with known consequences. You have yet to support this assertion, other than your say-so.

See above.
Further, God punished the whole world for the act of our ancients. Are you culpable for A & E?
No you are not.
Neither is anyone else.

Yes, all humans benefit from the increased awareness developed by our ancestors, so all human bear the onus of all the consequences of that awareness. As you've already admitted, you seem to be much more interested in demonizing a god rather than exercising the reasoning provided you by that increased awareness.

I do not need bias. I have given you the facts and you are the one who gives God a passing grade for things that only an immoral father would do.

If there is any bias, you are the one showing it.

Typical. When one loses a debate, they try to deflect.
Always trying to show the splinter in my eye while ignoring the log in yours.

Be honest or be gone.

Oh, I agree; you'd definitely be better off without your bias. You haven't given a single fact. You've only stuck to your mantra, and now prematurely claiming victory in lieu of engaging argument.

You are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty by asserting your opinions as fact.

The facts:

• Humans cannot comprehend consequences that are beyond the scope of their experience.
• Any admonition that does not account for this is useless, at best, and confusingly meaningless to those admonished.
• Any world in which there can be known consequences (displays some causality) is liable to having natural consequences as well.
• A person cannot be fully informed, in advance, of anything which is beyond their scope of experience.

Care to make a single logical argument for once?