Why is disbelief a sin?

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Actually, that is what happened. In the story of Adam and Eve, they were told not to eat of the tree of knowledge, lest they die.

Let’s concentrate on this part, because we went in circles concerning the other topics, so much so, that I can hardly remember where we started.

The truth is that the Genesis is one of my favorite passages from the Bible, it is so heavily loaded with contradictions, and yet it forms the very basic tenet of Christianity: the fall and the original sin.

Obviously there could have been no “historian” present to jot down the happenings there, so it is sheer mysticism. Now let’s review the story as written:

1. There was the Tree of Life in the Garden, unprotected. Furthermore, Adam and Eve were not forbidden to taste it. From that it follows logically that they were mortals to begin with - even though they were unaware of this fact. People tend to forget about the Tree of Life and its significance.
2. This is contradicted by the idea that the Garden of Eden was a perfect place, without “sin” and therefore no death occured there until the fall. The Tree of Life was superfluous in the first place, if they were immortals to begin with.
3. From this follows that the threat: “you will surely die” could not have meant anything to Adam and Eve, since death was an unknown phenomenon to them. (This also shows that the words: “you will surely die” was simply a lie, and God is not supposed to be able to lie. So much for that myth.)
4. There was also the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was forbidden to taste. Now why this restriction? Makes no sense: on one hand they were created in the image of God (whatever that means), on the other hand God forbids them to taste the fruit: “lest they become like us, knowing good from evil”.
5. What is wrong with knowing good from evil? It is actually the very basis of morality: knowing what is “good” and knowing what is “evil” and being able to choose between the two. Without this knowledge there can be no morality, animals and children (who have no idea about good and evil, they only seek their own personal well-being) are amoral (not immoral!) beings. This is what “free will” is all about: making real, important choices.
6. Effectively the eating from this Tree is what made us fully conscious, moral beings, different from animals with actual free will.
7. Now, the Tree of Knowledge was unprotected, except for the threat, which was meaningless for Adm and Eve. If God really wanted to them not to taste it, he could have removed it, or put an insurmountable barrier around it (this second one is a pretty cruel solution). I am sure you agree that God knew ahead of time that they WILL go and taste it, violating his (meaningless) command.
8. This act is called entrapment, like leaving out the cookie jar where the children have easy access to it, and then forbidding them to reach for it. Every parent knows (without being omniscient) that tempting a child, and forbidding them to succumb to this temptation is the best way to make sure that they WILL disobey.

Just like a child, who has no idea about good and evil, Adam and Eve could not have known that disobeying is wrong. This was the first command they received, coupled by a meaningless threat. Before one knows the difference between good and evil, there is no such thing as “right or wrong”. So, being innocent of knowledge, they were like animals, no concept of “good” and “evil”. In the light of this the punishment: “death” is even more unjust.

1. From this it follows that God deliberately acted, and WANTED Adam and Eve to “fall”. He knew that they will fall, he did not do anything against it, moreover he did everything to make sure that they WILL fall.

Conclusion: This story depicts God in a most unpleasant light: He knows that the fall will happen. He could have prevented it, but not only he did not try to prevent it, he made absolutely sure that it will happen. Then he dished out a punishment which is totally out of proportion with the deed. Adam and Eve were totally innocent, not being aware of the meaning of the threat and not understanding that disobeying the command is “wrong”. They stumbled only once, and yet God not only punished them, but all of their offsprings (not to mention the animals!). According to the story, God gets really angry, destroys the Garden, and punishes even the innocent for their ancestor’s deed. Is this what you call “loving”, “just” and “merciful”? The adjectives that come into my mind are very different and much less endearing…

That is my analysis. Do you have anything in God’s defense?

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Obviously there could have been no “historian” present to jot down the happenings there, so it is sheer mysticism.

you say mysticism, i say allegory. either way, if you believe this, why do you take everything in the book so literally?

Hitetlen:

Now let’s review the story as written:

howabout we read it as it was meant?

Hitetlen:

1. There was the Tree of Life in the Garden, unprotected. Furthermore, Adam and Eve were not forbidden to taste it. From that it follows logically that they were mortals to begin with - even though they were unaware of this fact. People tend to forget about the Tree of Life and its significance.

no, it does not follow “logically”, if by that you mean “it is entailed by”…

but whatever. why do you think it was a tree of physical life? and, even if it was, why do you think that eating of the tree of life before the fall would have had any effect on adam and eve? god didn’t forbid them to eat of it, after all.

Hitetlen:

1. This is contradicted by the idea that the Garden of Eden was a perfect place, without “sin” and therefore no death occured there until the fall. The Tree of Life was superfluous in the first place, if they were immortals to begin with.

but there wasn’t any sin until adam and eve committed the first one.

and, again, that there was a tree of life in no way entails that adam and eve would have died prior to the fall. see above.

and so what if the tree of life was “superfluous”? besides, it plays a pedagogical role in the text by showing that the death of the fall is not irrevocable, and that there is life to be had, if re-entry to the (figurative? spiritual?) garden could one day be effected.

Hitetlen:

1. From this follows that the threat: “you will surely die” could not have meant anything to Adam and Eve, since death was an unknown phenomenon to them.

why do you insist on these passages as a literal transcription of dialogue between god and the first couple? i mean, it’s not like the bible describes adam’s language-acquisition, so how did he learn to speak? and why couldn’t he have learned about the word “die” at that time? i mean, my three year old son had no concept of death before i taught him the word, and neither did i before i learned it…

Hitetlen:

(This also shows that the words: “you will surely die” was simply a lie, and God is not supposed to be able to lie. So much for that myth.)

how so? they ***did ***die, eventually. and in any case, what makes you think that god meant only a physical death?

Hitetlen:

1. There was also the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was forbidden to taste. Now why this restriction? Makes no sense: on one hand they were created in the image of God (whatever that means), on the other hand God forbids them to taste the fruit: “lest they become like us, knowing good from evil”.

if you admittedly don’t even know what it means for man to have been made in the image and likeness of god, then how can you profess to interpret the rest of these passages (which you also obviously misunderstand)? i don’t get it.

anyway, god made man rational and free, like himself. then he posed man with a chance to exercise that free will (just as he did the angels), to give man a chance to do the right thing. how is that in any way, shape, or form nonsensical?

Hitetlen:

1. What is wrong with knowing good from evil?

nothing. what’s wrong is doing something that god asks you not to do.

Hitetlen:

It is actually the very basis of morality: knowing what is “good” and knowing what is “evil” and being able to choose between the two. Without this knowledge there can be no morality, animals and children (who have no idea about good and evil, they only seek their own personal well-being) are amoral (not immoral!) beings. This is what “free will” is all about: making real, important choices.

you’re a little off here: what’s important about free will is that one make free choices, and there are all sorts of free choices that do not involve a choice between good and evil.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

Yes, if only the pro-abortion forces would keep their ideas out of the political system and state laws. If only those who like same-sex marriage would keep their ideas to themselves and not impose it on our organizations. If only the atheists would stay out of the wording of the pledge of allegiance. If only…

A few remarks about these complaints. The existence of liberties concerning abortion, same sex mariages etc. do not FORCE or compel you (or anyone else) to participate in those actions. The best bumper sticker about abortion read: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” That pretty much sums it up. The laws you complain about DO NOT restrict your liberty. The laws you want to create DO restrict my liberty. That is the fundamental difference.

hurst:

The fact is, Hitetlen, the laws that were created in the first place reflected people’s idea of morality.

No, they were not. The existence of laws is necessary to allow people to live together peacefully, to prevent predatory humans to force others to against their will, to kill or rob them. Admittedly there are laws way past that point, and I don’t consider them valid. The laws which are concerned with human activities that are either beneficial or neutral toward others should be taken off the books.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

1. Effectively the eating from this Tree is what made us fully conscious, moral beings, different from animals with actual free will.

maybe on your philosophical anthropology, but certainly not on catholicism’s.

Hitetlen:

1. Now, the Tree of Knowledge was unprotected, except for the threat, which was meaningless for Adm and Eve. If God really wanted to them not to taste it, he could have removed it, or put an insurmountable barrier around it (this second one is a pretty cruel solution). I am sure you agree that God knew ahead of time that they WILL go and taste it, violating his (meaningless) command.

but by your own lights, the purpose of free will is to allow meaningful choice between good and evil? how could any such choice have been made if there was a big fence around the tree?

you have a tremendously distorted concept of the christian religion, it seems…i want my child to choose to do the right thing, not simply to be incapable of doing the wrong thing - it is sometimes more important to choose freely than to choose correctly.

how is that problematic?

Hitetlen:

1. This act is called entrapment, like leaving out the cookie jar where the children have easy access to it, and then forbidding them to reach for it. Every parent knows (without being omniscient) that tempting a child, and forbidding them to succumb to this temptation is the best way to make sure that they WILL disobey.

and every parent knows that, at some point, there is almost nothing reasonable that can be done to prevent a child from getting what he wants. i mean, what are you proposing? that parents lock everything away behind steel doors, or something? or maybe just lock the child away…

but, again, that is entirely beside the point, which is that what was important to god was that adam and eve chose to do the right thing, and they could only do that if they were provided the opportunity to do the wrong thing.

Hitetlen:

Just like a child, who has no idea about good and evil, Adam and Eve could not have known that disobeying is wrong. This was the first command they received, coupled by a meaningless threat.

again, you make the baseless assumption that they did not have the full linguistic and cognitive capabilities of an adult…they knew what all kinds of words meant - why not “wrong”? by your logic, if you aren’t born with an understanding of words, you can never acquire them.
Hiettlen:

1. From this it follows that God deliberately acted, and WANTED Adam and Eve to “fall”. He knew that they will fall, he did not do anything against it, moreover he did everything to make sure that they WILL fall.

wow. this is pretty bad reasoning, Hitetlen…

knowing that something is possible, likely, or even necessary doesn’t in any way entail WANTING it. i’d love to hear your argument for that kind of entailment…

the same logic applies to such knowledge and CAUSING the foreseen event.

this seems more like a problem you have with the compatibility of omniscience and free choice; catholicism rejects the suggestion that any such incompatibility exists, and thus is not beholden to the interpretive restrictions of your own personal philosophy.

i’m not typically given to making observations like this, Hitetlen, but this is quite frankly a pretty juvenile bit of exegesis. if you were actually interested in understanding what the catholic church thinks about this stuff and basing your arguments on that, then it would be difficult for you to search for more than 5 minutes without finding entire books that demonstrate your rather enormous misunderstanding of the relevant issues…

i’m not sure if that’s a statement on your search-skills, or on what you’re interested in accomplishing in your intellectual life.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

you say mysticism, i say allegory. either way, if you believe this, why do you take everything in the book so literally?

It is not I who takes it literally, it is the believers, who do. After all if the “fall” is taken literally, then why not the rest?
john doran:

but there wasn’t any sin until adam and eve committed the first one.

Wasn’t there? So when the angels rebelled, that was not a “sin”? And if the angels did not rebel (only until later), then who was the “serpent”? It is usually considered that it was Satan in disguise.
john doran:

why do you insist on these passages as a literal transcription of dialogue between god and the first couple?

Because these are the most important passages of the Bible. If you wish to take them allegorically, except for the “fall”, you are guilty of cherry-picking, selecting whatever you think should be taken literally.
john doran:

you’re a little off here: what’s important about free will is that one make free choices, and there are all sorts of free choices that do not involve a choice between good and evil.

Oh, I agree with you, but in the thread I started about free will your cronies were all over my back, that the only freedom that counts is the decision concerning “good” and “evil”.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

It is not I who takes it literally, it is the believers, who do. After all if the “fall” is taken literally, then why not the rest?

because (some of) the rest isn’t meant literally.

Hitetlen:

Wasn’t there? So when the angels rebelled, that was not a “sin”? And if the angels did not rebel (only until later), then who was the “serpent”? It is usually considered that it was Satan in disguise.

the angels didn’t rebel in the garden of eden. they rebelled in heaven. your point concerned there being no sin in the garden, remember?

Hitetlen:

Because these are the most important passages of the Bible. If you wish to take them allegorically, except for the “fall”, you are guilty of cherry-picking, selecting whatever you think should be taken literally.

sigh. it’s not cherry-picking to understand the meaning of various parts of a text as they were intended by the author.

remember, i am not bound by your exegetical constraints: i believe that god is the author of the bible, and that the church is the primary interpretive authority of the text.

Hitetlen:

Oh, I agree with you, but in the thread I started about free will your cronies were all over my back, that the only freedom that counts is the decision concerning “good” and “evil”.

i don’t have cronies. and i don’t remember what was said in your other thread.

but i can tell you that adam and eve’s choice in the garden was about good and evil; my response was to your more general claim that free will only makes sense if the choices are between moral opposites. which is false.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

you have a tremendously distorted concept of the christian religion, it seems…i want my child to choose to do the right thing, not simply to be incapable of doing the wrong thing - it is sometimes more important to choose freely than to choose correctly.

how is that problematic?

It depends on the choice and its consequences. Do you leave out a loaded handgun, cocked and safety off, and rely on your command to your child?
john doran:

and every parent knows that, at some point, there is almost nothing reasonable that can be done to prevent a child from getting what he wants. i mean, what are you proposing? that parents lock everything away behind steel doors, or something? or maybe just lock the child away…

Either way is fine, as long as you do everything within your power to prevent the child from doing something harmful to himself or others. You don’t leave a scalpel out within the child’s reach. You do not leave a glass of poison where he can reach it. You do not simply prohibit the child to stay away from a ravine, you build a fence, if you really want to protect that child.

If, of course the forbidden act is harmless, it is a good practice to let the child learn through unpleasant experience. But you don’t leave the cookie jar out, and when the child disobeys you, then punish him with death.

You cannot whitewash God. With omnisicence and omnipotence there are no excuses. If there is a sign on God’s desk, it says: “The buck stops HERE!”.
john doran:

but, again, that is entirely beside the point, which is that what was important to god was that adam and eve chose to do the right thing, and they could only do that if they were provided the opportunity to do the wrong thing.

Yeah, right. So did God suffer from amnesia, and forgot about his omniscience? He knew up front that they WILL fail. If it were important to God that they will not eat that fruit, he should have prevented them from being able to reach it. If, however the fruit was unimportant per se, it was the obedience which was important, then the picture is even worse, MUCH worse.
john doran:

again, you make the baseless assumption that they did not have the full linguistic and cognitive capabilities of an adult…they knew what all kinds of words meant - why not “wrong”? by your logic, if you aren’t born with an understanding of words, you can never acquire them.

No sir. We learn through experience. And they had NO experience with commands before. That was the first and only one.
john doran:

knowing that something is possible, likely, or even necessary doesn’t in any way entail WANTING it. i’d love to hear your argument for that kind of entailment…

That kind of reasoning does not apply to an omniscient and omnipotent being. You can form the sentence in two ways: “God wanted them to fail…” or “God did not want them to succeed”. And whatever God wants to happen or does not want not to happen, will happen, your linguistic games notwithstanding.
john doran:

if you were actually interested in understanding what the catholic church thinks about this stuff and basing your arguments on that, then it would be difficult for you to search for more than 5 minutes without finding entire books that demonstrate your rather enormous misunderstanding of the relevant issues…

Actually, I am not interested in what the church “thinks” about these questions, I am interested in what YOU think about them.

 

[Hitetlen]

john doran:

but i can tell you that adam and eve’s choice in the garden was about good and evil

If that is the case HOW could they have chosen between good and evil, if they could not have had any idea just what good an evil is until they tasted the forbidden fruit? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

It depends on the choice and its consequences. Do you leave out a loaded handgun, cocked and safety off, and rely on your command to your child?

sure, if my child is an adult. and i don’t have to “leave” it anywhere: if he wants it at that point, he’ll get it.

Hitetlen:

Either way is fine, as long as you do everything within your power to prevent the child from doing something harmful to himself or others. You don’t leave a scalpel out within the child’s reach. You do not leave a glass of poison where he can reach it. You do not simply prohibit the child to stay away from a ravine, you build a fence, if you really want to protect that child.

again, not true if the child is an adult, like adam and eve were.

Hitetlen:

If, of course the forbidden act is harmless, it is a good practice to let the child learn through unpleasant experience. But you don’t leave the cookie jar out, and when the child disobeys you, then punish him with death.

it’s just dying, man. and, once again, remember that you’re engaging catholics in a discussion here: death is just the first part of one’s eternal life.

Hitetlen:

You cannot whitewash God. With omnisicence and omnipotence there are no excuses. If there is a sign on God’s desk, it says: “The buck stops HERE!”.

so you make the assumption that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient god. prove it. if you can, you’ll be the first.

Hitetlen:

Yeah, right. So did God suffer from amnesia, and forgot about his omniscience? He knew up front that they WILL fail. If it were important to God that they will not eat that fruit, he should have prevented them from being able to reach it. If, however the fruit was unimportant per se, it was the obedience which was important, then the picture is even worse, MUCH worse.

no. he knew they would freely choose to sin. what of it? it was still up to them, and his foreknowledge in no way caused the sin.

why does god have an obligation not to create free creatures who (freely) sin?

Hitetlen:

No sir. We learn through experience. And they had NO experience with commands before. That was the first and only one.

this makes no sense. if, for a command to be effective, it must always be preceded by a prior successfully understood command, then no command will ever be efficacious.

you continue to forget that adam and eve were adults, with the full complement of adult cognitive, linguistic, and moral faculties. which means they fully understood the meaning of all of the words and concepts required to comprehend what god told them, and, what’s more, they knew that they ought to do what god asked of them.

Hitetlen:

That kind of reasoning does not apply to an omniscient and omnipotent being. You can form the sentence in two ways: “God wanted them to fail…” or “God did not want them to succeed”. And whatever God wants to happen or does not want not to happen, will happen, your linguistic games notwithstanding.

ah, yes - the old “linguistic games” fallback. if i had a dime for every time i’ve heard that one over the last 17 years…

i wonder how you would respond to someone on this board if they made a similar reply to one of your arguments about science or math or logic.

anyway, why doesn’t it apply to omniscience? i can know something will occur with as much certainty as does an omniscient being - for example, that the proposition “i will die at some time t”, is true. does that mean that i want to die? or that i want my son to die?

so. if both god and i are equally certain of the truth of propositions like that, what does the fact that he knows the truth of a an infinite number of other propositions have to do with his desire that any of them be true?

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

Actually, I am not interested in what the church “thinks” about these questions, I am interested in what YOU think about them.

i think that the proposition “the church’s definitive teaching on matters of biblical interpretation is infallible” is true. where the church is silent, i form the opinion that makes the most sense in the context of all of my other beliefs.

look, hitetlen, what’s juvenile about this tack that you’re taking is that nothing you have said is even remotely a logical entailment of anything that catholics generally believe. nor are any of the assumptions you’re making in drawing these conclusions rationally compelling: there are other equally plausible, contradictory assumptions that could be (and are) made.

so. your approaching the topic of biblical exegesis from the perspective that you have some kind of logically airtight argument that makes contrary positions *prima facie *irrational, is facile. i mean, you quite clearly haven’t even familiarized yourself with the opposing viewpoints, let alone actually examined them and the assumptions they require. in fact, it seems like you just hit a couple of sites like infidels.org or something, or perused some similar books, and simply adopted their (in my experience) invariably perfunctory, inaccurate, and grossly oversimplified text as gospel.

i could be wrong, and if i am, i apologize. but even if i am wrong, it’s still the way that you come off.

 

[john_doran]

Hitetlen:

If that is the case HOW could they have chosen between good and evil, if they could not have had any idea just what good an evil is until they tasted the forbidden fruit? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

one can know what is good without “knowing” evil. only once they chose evil would they actually experience evil, and thus truly “know” it. in the biblical sense of “know”, of course.

look, god says “don’t eat fruit from that tree”. what they know (at least) is “we ought to do that which is good. it is good to do what god asks. god asks that we not eat that fruit. thus, avoiding the fruit is good. therefore we ought to avoid the fruit”.

then they talk to the snake, who tells them that knowledge is another good. then they think “we ought to do that which is good. knowledge is good. eating the apple will give me knowledge. therefore we ought to eat the apple”.

the moral reasoning comes into play when they then consider “but i have a reason not to eat the apple: namely that god asked us not to. choosing that for which one has a reason not to act is wrong. therefore i ought not to eat the apple”.

then they made a free choice to eat it anyway.

and, hey presto, they suddenly understand the implications of immoral action - of doing what they then describe as evil.

thus, they have new knowledge.

 

[Thal59]

I had to reply to this.

1. There was the Tree of Life in the Garden, unprotected. Furthermore, Adam and Eve were not forbidden to taste it. From that it follows logically that they were mortals to begin with - even though they were unaware of this fact… (snip)

Mortality applies only to the body; the spirit and soul is immortal. But, could the tree of life have preserved them even physically in such a way that they were indeed physically immortal as long as they had the tree of life to feed them? Since this is a possibility, their mortality or immortality cannot be inferred from the passage.

1. This is contradicted by the idea that the Garden of Eden was a perfect place, without “sin” and therefore no death occured there until the fall. The Tree of Life was superfluous in the first place, if they were immortals…

But not if their physical immortality was dependent upon the tree of life. In other words, while the spiritual nature of God supplied their spiritual immortality, the instrumentality of a physical tree of life was given to them to provide for their physical immortality. True, it is not absolutely impossible for God to preserve them without the use of this “tree” whatever it really is. God merely chose to do it this way. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the verses; only error in your interpretation.

1. From this follows that the threat: “you will surely die” could not have meant anything to Adam and Eve, since death was an unknown phenomenon to them. (Snip)

You will surely die is not a threat but a loving warning. Hitetlen, you seem to have an aversion to attribute difficult actions out of a motive of love. If you were to put a glass of wine to your lips, and I were to strike the glass from your hands, you may interpret that action as being unfriendly, unkind, aggravating, or perhaps even insulting. But if I then informed you that the wine was poisoned, if you recognized my motive as one of love to protect you, your appreciation of my act would change immensely. But you seem to be implying that if I screamed at you from a distance, “If you drink that wine, you will surely die!” that this vociferous proclamation is nothing more than a threat.

You are basing your interpretation on the notion that they could not have understood what death was since it was unknown to them. This is the false premise that a person can only know what they experience. But one only needs to close their eyes to perceive of blindness. It may not be true blindness, but they can gain a rudimentary understanding of it. If Adam and Eve can see a fruit on a tree and then eat it, they can perceive that something that was once alive no longer exists. In essence, to pluck a fruit from its “tree of life” and to consume it is a most sublime experience of life and death. You are also overlooking the abundance of grace that Adam and Eve had due to their proximity to God. From grace comes wisdom - and from this wisdom also comes an innate ability to reason out things that are not blatantly, physically evident.

1. There was also the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was forbidden to taste. Now why this restriction? Makes no sense: on one hand they were created in the image of God (whatever that means), on the other hand God forbids them to taste the fruit… (snip)

Obviously, it was a test. They were created in His image and likeness, they had free will, but they were not perfect or divine. To disobey God’s will by eating of the fruit is another example of learning about a “phenomena” that was previously unknown to them, just like perceiving death in the consummation of a fruit from a tree.

1. What is wrong with knowing good from evil? It is actually the very basis of morality: knowing what is “good” and knowing what is “evil” and being able to choose between the two. Without this knowledge there can be no morality… (snip)

Morality is a good thing, but it is like a medicine for immorality; it is only necessary where immorality abounds. It is like a patch in the leaking hull of a ship - you need it to keep from drowning. But if your hull was perfect, you would have no need of a patch. You ask… “What is wrong with knowing good from evil?” If one knows evil, then one may, of their own free will, decide to pursue and practice it. One needn’t look any farther than Saddam Hussein or Adolph Hitler to see what evil can do to a person as well as to a country, if not even the whole world. If the perpetuity of evil is necessary for me to keep my “free will to choose” then I will gladly abrogate that free will if evil will perish.

 

[Thal59]

1. Effectively the eating from this Tree is what made us fully conscious, moral beings, different from animals with actual free will.

Adam and Eve were fully conscious. Do not make the mistake that they were uneducated children in adult bodies. By eating, in violation to God’s will, they already knew of, and exercised, their actual free will. This action did not makes us moral beings as there have been many people who have lived with no morality at all; it merely brought into the equation the necessity of morality now that the perfect hull had sprung a leak.

1. Now, the Tree of Knowledge was unprotected, except for the threat, which was meaningless for Adm and Eve.If God really wanted to them not to taste it, he could have removed it, or put an insurmountable barrier around it (this second one is a pretty cruel solution).I am sure you agree that God knew ahead of time that they WILL go and taste it, violating his (meaningless) command.

Blue text: We have already seen that God’s command was motivated out of love and was not a threat. We have also seen that Adam and Eve had the capacity to understand it ramifications…

Red text: This would negate the test that He intended.

Brown text: Perhaps God felt that it was necessary for man to fail the simplest of tests to instill in him the absolute necessity man has on God’s love, care, and mercy. Perhaps God wished, in no uncertain terms, to demonstrate to all of mankind that knowledge, intelligence, reason, logic, experience, evidence, free will, free choice, etc., cannot preserve man forever. Only by placing his faith in God and relying on Him in all things can man reach his final destiny and find perfect life through perfect love and obedience. Adam and Eve failed at this many millennia ago; the atheist is failing at this now as he disdains faith for his own limited and faulty reasoning.

8A) This act is called entrapment, like leaving out the cookie jar where the children have easy access to it, and then forbidding them to reach for it. Every parent knows (snip)that tempting a child, and forbidding them to succumb to this temptation is the best way to make sure that they WILL disobey.

This is a very weak analogy. First of all, it presupposes that all children are disobedient and would fail the test. Secondly, it again errantly equates the knowledge, reason, and wisdom of Adam and Eve to that of uneducated children. Thirdly, it ignores the difference between Adam and Eve’s state of grace in paradise and that of a child born into a fallen-nature which lacks that abundance of grace. Fourthly, the cookie jar represents “all” of the cookies, the tree of knowledge of good and evil did not. Adam and Eve were allowed to eat of the fruit of many trees, they were prohibited from only one.

Your analogy would be more accurate if the child in question had 100 cookie jars with 100 different types of cookies to choose from, but was then told not to eat of the cookies in the black cookie jar with the skull and crossbones on it for it will make you sick. Under these conditions, even the most obtuse child might succeed in obeying his parents.

 

[Thal59]

In light of these four faults, I must take back my statement that you analogy is very weak.

Rigor mortis is setting in.

8B) Just like a child, who has no idea about good and evil, Adam and Eve could not have known that disobeying is wrong. This was the first command they received, coupled by a meaningless threat. Before one knows the difference between good and evil, there is no such thing as “right or wrong”. So, being innocent of knowledge, they were like animals, no concept of “good” and “evil”. In the light of this the punishment: “death” is even more unjust.

We have already demonstrated that your notion that Adam and Eve were stupid due to lack of personal experience holds no water. But regarding the injustice of the penalty of death, did not Adam and Eve choose this? Were they not told that if they did what God forbade them to do they would die? They were warned, they were instructed, they chose to disobey - which infers that they were willing to accept the consequences - and they suffered the results. The atheist chooses not to listen to God, not to obey, not to believe Him, not to have faith in Him, and they will suffer the consequences. Where is there injustice in this?

1. From this it follows that God deliberately acted, and WANTED Adam and Eve to “fall”. He knew that they will fall, he did not do anything against it, moreover he did everything to make sure that they WILL fall.

God did not do everything to make sure they will fail. This is a study in contradictory nonsense. You first accuse God of “threatening” Adam and Eve with death, but you then accuse Him of doing everything He could to make them fail. If He wished them to fail, He would not have “threatened” them; rather, He would have said “Take of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for its fruit is most delicious.” Adam and Eve were given a simple test. They were told of the dangers. They sinned anyway. They suffered the consequences. You are supportive of Adam and Eve’s actions, and you do this through the thinly veiled attribute of them being innately stupid, in an attempt to vilify God while vindicating yourself. This is because the atheist, like Adam and Eve, freely chooses to sin, disobey God, and do what they will regardless of the warning or the consequences.

When the prescribed punishment befalls them, they call it unjust.

Conclusion: (snipped to save space.)

Since your 9 statements have been shown to be vapid, your conclusion, which is based upon their credibility, is equally lame. We are not “punished” *per se *as the ancestors of Adam and Eve, we simply endure the effects of their decisions. If a man made one dumb decision after another which led him and his family to poverty would it be just for the wife and children to endure the poverty as well?If this man’s children embraced the poverty all of their life, would it be unjust that they perish in poverty, or that their children should be born into that same poverty?

But they have the option of working their way out of that poverty, of learning from their father’s mistakes, and of passing on their success, and their lessons learned, to their children. This is what people who believe in God are doing. We are learning from Adam and Eve’s mistakes and we are working our way out of a life that is poor in grace unto that life where grace abounds; and we pass this on to our children.

We also try to pass this on to people such as yourself. But if you embrace the world and its pleasures, and its dangers, you will never be free of it; nor will your children. Because you have rejected God, you do not have the strength to break free from your self-chosen fate. When light came, you rejected it. When darkness came, you accepted it. When the spirit of God beckoned, you denied Him. Or perhaps if a deceased loved one stood before you now, you would believe, repent, and love God. But what strength would your belief have then? What would it matter?

You do not have faith, therefore you do not have the strength it gives to be able to break free from the intellectual and materialistic poverty atheism has inflicted on you. This is the tree you have chosen to eat from, and this is your fate. Do not attempt to blame the misfortune of your self-inflicted fate on a faulty misconception of God and His attributes. The choice was yours, so too is the fault.

After all, you could always have a change of heart. If you choose to resist this last option…

Thal59

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

You are basing your interpretation on the notion that they could not have understood what death was since it was unknown to them. This is the false premise that a person can only know what they experience.

It is not necessary to have them experience their own death. There was no death in Garden, so they could not have known what it means. Plucking a fruit from a tree does not do the tree any harm, they will simply grow new ones. That is as far cry from “death” as it can be.

Thal59:

You are also overlooking the abundance of grace that Adam and Eve had due to their proximity to God. From grace comes wisdom - and from this wisdom also comes an innate ability to reason out things that are not blatantly, physically evident.

Well, that wisdom did not work real well. Even with a grain of rationality, if there is a special Tree of Life, which is not even forbidden, they could have taken a fruit from that tree first, and then the supposed “death” caused by the Tree of Knowledge would have been rendered null and void. That is not wisdom to overlook the simple solution to such an easy problem. By the way, that also shows that they cannot be considered adults.

Furthermore, just when did God utter that “warning”? Do you think that Adam and Eve lived for weeks, months, maybe even years in the Garden, and then, all of a sudden God realized that he forgot to tell them about the dangers of that tree? He slapped his forehead on a sunny spring day and ran down to the meadows? Did he leave them stumble around in their ignorance and risk that they will take a fruit from that tree - by accident?

It is much more sensible that immediately after having created them, he told them about the Tree. And then how could they have known what the warning means? Indeed, they were like children. They never had to work in their lives, never worry about bad weather, never worry about danger from wild animals. All they had to do was singing praises to God, plucking ripe fruits from the trees, and hopefully having sex in the morning and in the afternoon, with a few quickies thrown in for good measure’s sake.

And your argument that the threat was really a “loving warning” is belied by the Bible where God says: “lest they learn good from evil and become one like us”. You call it “love”, I call it jealousy… which is reaffirmed multiple times in the Bible. God is not even ashamed of his jealousy, proclaims it rather frequently.

Thal59:

Obviously, it was a test.

A test, indeed? These are the utterances which force me tell you that the picture you paint about God is totally ridiculous. Testing is nonsense for an omniscient being. God knew up front that they will fail the test. I wonder if you want to deceive me or yourself?

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

The best bumper sticker about abortion read: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” That pretty much sums it up.

The more this kind of statements you affirm, the less (if possible) your credibility is….
Is it atheism anything else than the absolute desecration of human life?
Is it atheism anything else than the absolute defeat of human condition?

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

It is not necessary to have them experience their own death. There was no death in Garden, so they could not have known what it means. Plucking a fruit from a tree does not do the tree any harm, they will simply grow new ones. That is as far cry from “death” as it can be.

My poor Hitetlen, your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. My post outlined the ability of Adam and Eve to perceive of the “phenomena of death” by understanding that the fruit they eat, which was perhaps once a mere blossom, grew to maturity, was harvested, and then perished as they ate it. You attempt to refute the observation by saying the plucking of the fruit does not harm the tree! I demonstrate the perishing of the fruit, you refute with the health of the tree.

Hitetlen, please read these questions with an open mind, rather than with an attitude that you must refute the point at hand at all costs.

Did Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the garden?
Can the consumming of the fruit be perceived as the fruit perishing?
Could Adam and Eve notice that something that was once in the Garden one day, was not there the next day?
Could this not give them at least a rudimentary understanding of death, dying, or perishing?

Hitetlen:

Well, that wisdom did not work real well. Even with a grain of rationality, if there is a special Tree of Life, which is not even forbidden, they could have taken a fruit from that tree first, and then the supposed “death” caused by the Tree of Knowledge would have been rendered null and void. That is not wisdom to overlook the simple solution to such an easy problem. By the way, that also shows that they cannot be considered adults.

This shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Your point is rendered moot by the fact that they were not told of the tree of life. Besides, just what exactly is the tree of life and what would have happened if they did eat of it first? Or are you suggesting that if Adam and Eve ate from that tree, they could never die, even if God willed it? Your “presupposition” that the fruit of the tree of life would have rendered death null and void is based entirely on guesswork. What source from antiquity do you offer that supports your contention? How did the Old Testament Jews interpret the tree of life?

I can also dispute your understanding of wisdom. “That is not wisdom to overlook the simple solution to such an easy problem.” Having wisdom does not mean one will always do the right thing. One may understand with wisdom a certain situation, yet fail that event because his emotions got the best of him. Did this not ocurr in the life of Solomon? He was given an enormous gift of wisdom, but he still made some bad decisions that were borne of his emotions such that God divided his kingdom.

Yet, after making such a nonsense statement, you then judge that Adam and Eve were not adults because they did not figure out the solution that is so easy for your advanced intellect to understand. All you have proven is your arrogance.

Hitetlen:

Furthermore, just when did God utter that “warning”? Do you think that Adam and Eve lived for weeks, months, maybe even years in the Garden, and then, **all of a sudden God realized that he forgot to tell them about the dangers of that tree? He slapped his forehead on a sunny spring day and ran down to the meadows? Did he leave them stumble around in their ignorance and risk that they will take a fruit from that tree - by accident?****/**QUOTE]

Your following statement below is true, He told Adam immediately. Gen 2:15-17. But once again, your tendency to render your point in terms that are menat to openly ridicule God is another display of arrogance and insult on your part. Certainly you understand that making such tastless remarks about God on a Catholic forum wll not win you any points or give you any credibility. Common sense would dictate that one would be wise to show respect towards an entity you disagree with when you wish to discuss Him on a board hosted by those who believe in Him. Because you have made such an unwise approach regarding your desire to present God with such unflattering rhetoric, am I to deduce, as you have with Adam and Eve, that you are not an adult? That you demonstrate a childlike mentality?

Have you not proven the point I made earlier regarding the fall of Solomon? Have you not let your emotions induce you to make take a rhetorical approach to God that is unwise?

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

It is much more sensible that immediately after having created them, he told them about the Tree.**/**QUOTE]

True, as I stated above.

Hitetlen:

And then how could they have known what the warning means?/

QUOTE]

I have already answered this. You are presupposing that God is stupid in that He warned them of something they could not understand. Is it possible that God knew that they could understand Him? Did Adam ever ask God to clarify what He was talking about? Since Adam makes no statement to the idea that he did not understand God’s warning, it must be assumed he did understand.

Hitetlen:

Indeed, they were like children./

QUOTE]

Let’s call this point A. We’ll come back to it shortly.

Hitetlen:

They never had to work in their lives./

QUOTE]

Your statement is wrong. God put Adam into the Garden to till and keep it. Or, to harvest and secure it. This constitutes work.

Hitetlen:

…never worry about bad weather./

QUOTE]

An unsubstantiated guess.

Hitetlen:

…never worry about danger from wild animals./

QUOTE]

Another unsubstantiated guess. What about the animals outside of the garden? Or are you suggesting that Adam was “locked” inside the garden by an impenetrable force-field? These guesses invalidate point A.

Hitetlen:

All they had to do was singing praises to God, plucking ripe fruits from the trees, and hopefully having sex in the morning and in the afternoon, with a few quickies thrown in for good measure’s sake./

QUOTE]

More unsubstantiated guesswork based once again on a decided contempt of both God and mankind. It therefore deserves no attention.

Hitetlen:

And your argument that the threat was really a “loving warning” is belied by the Bible where God says: “lest they learn good from evil and become one like us”. You call it “love”, I call it jealousy… which is reaffirmed multiple times in the Bible. God is not even ashamed of his jealousy, proclaims it rather frequently.

Again you show a lack of understanding caused by emotional instability. The expression “lest they learn good from evil…” is for starts a misquote. Gen 3:21-22. But if one reads the remarks in context, one undertstands that they are not to be taken literally. It would be like a child playing with his father’s wallet and his father taking it away from him “Lest he become as financially astute as I.” Knowledge of the wallet, or possession of the credit cards does not make a child financially astute. God’s words, which you misquoted badly, are a play on words to show that the words of Satan that they accepted, were grossly in error.

Hitetlen:

A test, indeed? These are the utterances which force me tell you that the picture you paint about God is totally ridiculous. Testing is nonsense for an omniscient being.

God knew up front that they will fail the test. I wonder if you want to deceive me or yourself?

You just keep missing the mark, Hitetlen. Earlier you diverted the focus of the explanation of the fruit to the tree, remember? Now you divert the test from the student to the teacher. God was not testing His knowledge of them, He was testing their obedience to Him. If I made as many mistakes as you have, if I diverted attention and focus off of the issues and relied on as many “wild guesses” as you have, then I too would consider this picture of God as ridiculous.

But to me, because of these many mistakes, diversions, and guesses you have made, my picture of God is crystal clear. It is the picture you have so abundantly painted with errors that appears ridiculous to me.

Thal59

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

A few remarks about these complaints. The existence of liberties concerning abortion, same sex mariages etc. do not FORCE or compel you (or anyone else) to participate in those actions.

But it does force and compel our organizations to provide them. I even noted those cases. What do you have to say about that?

Hitetlen:

The best bumper sticker about abortion read: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” That pretty much sums it up. The laws you complain about DO NOT restrict your liberty. The laws you want to create DO restrict my liberty. That is the fundamental difference.

Please read again what I wrote.

Such laws are beginning to force moral people to aid the immoral behavior of unscrupulous people by forcing them under pain of fines, imprisonment and business closure to provide abortion pills, insurance for immoral acts, and more.

Immoral people are starting to harness the law to force the public to support their lifestyle, while simultaneously decrying others from “legislating morals”. What hypocrisy! They are essentially saying one is only allowed to legislate “immorality”, that is, legalize immoral behavior and make it illegal to hinder.

God is being pushed out of the legal moral code by popular appeal to hedonism, materialism, and naturalism. Right before our eyes we see people, our country, breaking faith and choosing to no longer rely on or obey God. They have chosen the immediately available fruit and overcome their desire to avoid spiritual death by choosing to not believe. It is a sin they did not have to commit. God did not force them to do it, but opposed it, and to this day He is ridiculed. And you ask why disbelief is a sin, and why God would punish someone who desired sin when He could have taken away their desire for sin. But I say He prevented us by making us know that we would die. We still chose to disobey, because we falsely judged that temporary pleasure was a greater good than eternal life. And since we made this judgment, then we will be given what we chose - temporary pleasure, followed by eternal death. It is a sobering situation. It shows that not keeping faith is treacherous and deceitful and destructive.

hurst

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

But it does force and compel our organizations to provide them. I even noted those cases. What do you have to say about that?

I certainly agree that people should not be forced to perform services against their better judgment. But I am not aware of such force. I ceratinly heard about doctors who deny to perform abortions, and pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives prescribed by doctors. Are they thrown into jail? Not to my knowledge. Besides, doctors are bound by their Hippocratic oath to perform their services.

I also heard about some fanatics who bomb clinics, and take pride in their actions. Other fanatics who create websites and post names of doctors who perform abortions and openly incite to murder them. When a doctor is killed, their name is displayed with a line drawn across it. These people threaten doctors to kill their children. Did you hear about them, too?

hurst:

Such laws are beginning to force moral people to aid the immoral behavior of unscrupulous people by forcing them under pain of fines, imprisonment and business closure to provide abortion pills, insurance for immoral acts, and more.

But that is YOUR morality, not mine. If you wish to convince me that your morality should be taken seriously, that it should curtail my freedom, you are under obligation to PROVE beyond any doubt whatsoever, that God exists, and your perception of his commands and wishes are accurate. The mere fact that you (and others) honestly believe so is totally irrelevant. As I said before, I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I wish to be respected equally.

hurst:

God is being pushed out of the legal moral code by popular appeal to hedonism, materialism, and naturalism. Right before our eyes we see people, our country, breaking faith and choosing to no longer rely on or obey God. They have chosen the immediately available fruit and overcome their desire to avoid spiritual death by choosing to not believe.

Your God does not belong in the legal code, just like Allah does not belong there, Zeus, Jupiter, Zoroaster, Brahma does not belong there - until there is absolute, postive evidence and proof that your God is more than a figment of your imagination.

hurst:

It is a sin they did not have to commit. God did not force them to do it, but opposed it, and to this day He is ridiculed. And you ask why disbelief is a sin, and why God would punish someone who desired sin when He could have taken away their desire for sin. But I say He prevented us by making us know that we would die. We still chose to disobey, because we falsely judged that temporary pleasure was a greater good than eternal life.

Here and now are beyond dispute. Eternal life is just as unsupported as God. If someone does not believe in it, they should be allowed to go on their merry way. If they are wrong, it will be God to punishes them, not you and the society. We owe each other respect, tolerance and non-interference - nothing more. That way you can pursue your way to a more satisfying life and I can pursue mine.

Many people complain that they are exposed to the sight of “immoral” behavior, for example homosexual couples. That is called tough luck. No one has the right to be sheltered from things they disapprove of. When I see someone displaying posters and screaming that abortion is a slaughter of “innocent baybees” I feel nauseated, too. But I have no right to be spared seeing such nonsense. They have the right to display those posters and scream their opinion from the street corners. I have the right to look away.