Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted June 30 Super Moderator Share Posted June 30 7 hours ago, Edgarcito said: You’re not very bright are you. Perhaps not. But you have admitted that evil existed before Eve ate the fruit; and you have admitted that god created that evil. I'm at least bright enough to put two and two together to figure out that it must have been god who placed the evil he created into the Garden that he also created. Are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted June 30 Author Share Posted June 30 5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: Perhaps not. But you have admitted that evil existed before Eve ate the fruit; and you have admitted that god created that evil. I'm at least bright enough to put two and two together to figure out that it must have been god who placed the evil he created into the Garden that he also created. Are you? And let's not forget that Edgarcito has also admitted this, Prof. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. So, he admits that before she ate and even after her conversation with Satan, Eve was still an empty void. Empty of all understanding of what she was about to do, unaware of the consequences of her actions, unable to understand of the results of her actions and with no discernment of good and evil. All of the above. Before she ate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 2 Author Share Posted July 2 To any and all reading this thread... Unless Edgarcito tells me, there's no way I can know the details of the question/s he wants answered. I await his input on that matter. So, for the time being I'm going to work through the logic of his statements about Eve. According to Edgarcito, before she ate the fruit she was an empty void. In his words, "She did not possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate." The logic of this statement means that before she ate Eve could not be held responsible for the consequences and results of her choice. That is because she did not possess the understanding of what was involved so could not discern who to follow - god (good) or Satan (evil). All she could see after conversing with Satan was that the forbidden tree was pleasing to the eye and good for food, just like all the other trees she and Adam were allowed to eat from in Eden. So, acting upon what she already knew about the other trees Eve acted, without being able to consider the full implications of what she was doing. 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. In law, children below the age of responsibility or people with mental disabilities are given special dispensation. The law recognizes that such people cannot be held responsible for intentionally breaking a law because they had no way of understanding the consequences and results of their law-breaking actions. They are therefore discharged of their responsibility. Even though he hasn't explicitly said it, according to the logic of Edgarcito's model of Eve's mind she was not just a mental child but also mentally impaired and unable to understand what she was doing when she ate the fruit. This means that the underlying logic of his argument excuses Eve from all wrongdoing and blame. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Satan asked Eve, “Did God really say…”, and she knew the answer to that question yet chose the fruit anyhow. What do we make of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 7 hours ago, Edgarcito said: Satan asked Eve, “Did God really say…”, and she knew the answer to that question yet chose the fruit anyhow. What do we make of this. You've already committed yourself on the issue of what you make of it, Ed. You placed Eve's understanding in the fruit and not in her. You said that before she ate the fruit she had no understanding of what she was doing. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said: You've already committed yourself on the issue of what you make of it, Ed. You placed Eve's understanding in the fruit and not in her. You said that before she ate the fruit she had no understanding of what she was doing. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. Lol if you don’t want to discuss that statement… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 8 Super Moderator Share Posted July 8 Oh wow! Somebody can know the "correct" answer while having literally zero understanding of the subject matter?! Sounds a lot like the American education system. What's that got to do with Eve, though? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: Lol if you don’t want to discuss that statement… What's there to discuss? You've already pinned your colours to the mast. Saying that she didn't understand, didn't know what she was doing and couldn't see the consequences of her actions. Which means that you me and the Prof are in agreement. None of us think that Eve understood, knew what she was doing or could foresee the consequences of her actions. So what do you want to discuss, Ed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Eve was disobedient by her choice irrespective of good and evil.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 A slight aside to what's going on here. I can across the following article today: Hittite royal seal found in Büklükale warns ‘Whoever breaks this will die’ And from that article: Quote Hittitologists read the cuneiform on the seal. According to the experts, the seal reads “He who breaks this will die”, indicating that those who violate agreements will be punished. Since Hittite Laws generally prescribe fines or compensation instead of the death penalty or corporal punishment as sanctions for an offense, this seal is quite remarkable in terms of showing the importance of the agreement. I think it's fairly interesting given the discussion especially if we consider the straight reading of the Genesis text and apply this there. Then "die" would mean "punish" which is still an issue but much less dire. It would also mean they did "die" or get punished on that day. It appears to have happened which removes any talk of whether god lied about death or whether there is such a thing as a spiritual death. It also means that literal death, for humans at least, does not enter the world at the moment of eating the fruit but when the punishment is handed down. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: Eve was disobedient by her choice irrespective of good and evil.... I won't speak for the Prof. But you and I agree about one thing, yet disagree about another. I agree that Eve was disobedient. But I do not agree that she made any kind of choice. I'm holding to that position because I'm playing Devil's Advocate and using the bible to guide me. Romans 11 : 32 says that god overrode Eve's free will, by binding her into a state of disobedience. But I'm puzzled as to why you now say that she made a choice BEFORE she ate. You wrote this about Eve. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. So how does a person without understanding, without the ability to foresee the consequences and results of her actions and with no discernment of good and evil make a free-willed choice, Ed? This isn't me asking, btw. Even though I'm typing out the words. This is your own argument, your own position on the issue and your words, quoted verbatim. You aren't stuck on anything we've written. You're stuck inside your own argument. You seem to be saying two different and contradictory things. 1. She had no ability to freely choose before she ate. 2. She made a free willed choice before she ate. They can't both be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 31 minutes ago, mwc said: A slight aside to what's going on here. I can across the following article today: Hittite royal seal found in Büklükale warns ‘Whoever breaks this will die’ And from that article: I think it's fairly interesting given the discussion especially if we consider the straight reading of the Genesis text and apply this there. Then "die" would mean "punish" which is still an issue but much less dire. It would also mean they did "die" or get punished on that day. It appears to have happened which removes any talk of whether god lied about death or whether there is such a thing as a spiritual death. It also means that literal death, for humans at least, does not enter the world at the moment of eating the fruit but when the punishment is handed down. mwc That's interesting, mwc. But can I please ask you to hold back on this for now? Or put it into it's own thread, maybe? Just until the Prof, Edgarcito and I have made some more progress here. Thank you, Walter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 19 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: I won't speak for the Prof. But you and I agree about one thing, yet disagree about another. I agree that Eve was disobedient. But I do not agree that she made any kind of choice. I'm holding to that position because I'm playing Devil's Advocate and using the bible to guide me. Romans 11 : 32 says that god overrode Eve's free will, by binding her into a state of disobedience. But I'm puzzled as to why you now say that she made a choice BEFORE she ate. You wrote this about Eve. She did not yet possess the understanding, the consequences, the results, the discernment of good and evil. Those were in the fruit. She did not download all that entails until she ate. So how does a person without understanding, without the ability to foresee the consequences and results of her actions and with no discernment of good and evil make a free-willed choice, Ed? This isn't me asking, btw. Even though I'm typing out the words. This is your own argument, your own position on the issue and your words, quoted verbatim. You aren't stuck on anything we've written. You're stuck inside your own argument. You seem to be saying two different and contradictory things. 1. She had no ability to freely choose before she ate. 2. She made a free willed choice before she ate. They can't both be true. I don't know where you get the idea that one, she couldn't have free will without the knowledge, and two, that her choice was dependent ON that knowledge. Disobedience might fall under morality, but Satan didn't ask in "you will be choosing a moral outcome". The question was "did God really say?" ...which she knew the answer regardless. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 53 minutes ago, mwc said: A slight aside to what's going on here. I can across the following article today: Hittite royal seal found in Büklükale warns ‘Whoever breaks this will die’ And from that article: I think it's fairly interesting given the discussion especially if we consider the straight reading of the Genesis text and apply this there. Then "die" would mean "punish" which is still an issue but much less dire. It would also mean they did "die" or get punished on that day. It appears to have happened which removes any talk of whether god lied about death or whether there is such a thing as a spiritual death. It also means that literal death, for humans at least, does not enter the world at the moment of eating the fruit but when the punishment is handed down. mwc I appreciate the input. Die for me meant that ultimately, they would die the second death. Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 1 minute ago, Edgarcito said: I don't know where you get the idea that one, she couldn't have free will without the knowledge, and two, that her choice was dependent ON that knowledge. Disobedience might fall under morality, but Satan didn't ask in "you will be choosing a moral outcome". The question was "did God really say?" ...which she knew the answer regardless. Thx. Ok then, Ed. Let's explore point # 1. How can a person without the knowledge of good and evil (before they ate the fruit) make a free willed choice between good (obedience) and evil (disobedience) when they don't acquire that knowledge until after they eat? I say they can't. But you seem to be saying that they can. So please tell me how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 8 Super Moderator Share Posted July 8 22 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: The question was "did God really say?" ...which she knew the answer regardless. She also lied about the answer, indicating that she was already sinful without any choice being made or fruit eaten. Even if I concede your irrelevant point that she made the "choice" it doesn't alter the fact that she was created sinful from the beginning and the fruit had nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: She also lied about the answer, indicating that she was already sinful without any choice being made or fruit eaten. Even if I concede your irrelevant point that she made the "choice" it doesn't alter the fact that she was created sinful from the beginning and the fruit had nothing to do with it. She was bound over after she ate. How could she be bound any direction prior to the knowledge other than your assumption. She was by default in an unbound position...ie. not knowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 I'm going to drop these definitions here: Quote Moral Agents are entities whose actions are eligible for moral consideration. An example of this would be a young child old enough to understand right from wrong, yet they hit their siblings on an occasion when they get angry. The action of hitting is up for moral consideration because the child is old enough to consider whether or not it is the correct action to take and the morality of their behavior.[5] Moral Patients are entities that themselves are eligible for moral consideration. An example of this would be a child who does not know how to determine right from wrong. A child in this situation is up for moral consideration by others because those around them understand they are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions and are therefore unable to understand the morality of a situation due to developmental barriers.[5] I'm going to say that there is a disagreement as to which of these Adam and Eve are? If they don't know moral right from wrong then it appears they're moral patients and not moral agents. Now, I don't have the book (Ethics in Ancient Israel -- I'll have to see if it's available anywhere) but the first line of the abstract: Quote Who was regarded as morally responsible in ancient Israel (a ‘moral agent’) and for whom (a ‘moral patient’)? Given an ethical argument, then, it would follow we'd need to determine who was the moral agent responsible for our moral patients? Since god is the only other character we have that can be a moral agent I'm going to have to go with him. A serpent, a wild animal, doesn't seem to qualify even if it's later said to be magic. And this from Josephus on the idea of free will among the Jews: Quote Wars 13.171. "Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly." This is really just to provide everyone with some idea of what the thinking was a couple thousand years ago and may have helped inform some of the authors though they may have taken their ideas from outside Jewish thought. To me some of it reads fairly deterministic, almost Platonic perhaps Essenic given Josephus here, in that a single decision started an unchangeable chain of events and only a divine intervention can alter that. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 8 Super Moderator Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: She was bound over after she ate. How could she be bound any direction prior to the knowledge other than your assumption. She was by default in an unbound position...ie. not knowing. I have made no assumption concerning when, or how, she was "bound." My position, about which I have been clear, is that she was created sinful already. This is evident from the answer she gave: "Yes. god said we could not eat the fruit, nor even touch it..." This answer was a lie; god never said they could not touch the fruit. Eve, therefore, had the ability to sin before she made any choice or ate any fruit. She was sinful without having made a choice. Whether god "bound" her to sin after she made the choice, or she was bound to sin because god created her that way is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The fault still lies with god, not Eve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: She was bound over after she ate. How could she be bound any direction prior to the knowledge other than your assumption. She was by default in an unbound position...ie. not knowing. This makes no sense, Ed. Romans 11 : 32 says that god bound everyone into a state of disobedience. If Eve's act of disobedience was eating the fruit, then why would god bind her into a state of disobedience afterwards? Surely binding her before so that she disobeys his command is the result he wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Edgarcito said: She was bound over after she ate. How could she be bound any direction prior to the knowledge other than your assumption. She was by default in an unbound position...ie. not knowing. And if you say that Eve was unbound before she ate, then she's in a state of not knowing, as you point out. Which brings us back to my earlier question. How can a person without the knowledge of good and evil (before they ate the fruit) make a free willed choice between good (obedience) and evil (disobedience) when they don't acquire that knowledge until after they eat? Please explain to me how a person without any of the above can make a free willed choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 4 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said: And if you say that Eve was unbound before she ate, then she's in a state of not knowing, as you point out. Which brings us back to my earlier question. How can a person without the knowledge of good and evil (before they ate the fruit) make a free willed choice between good (obedience) and evil (disobedience) when they don't acquire that knowledge until after they eat? Please explain to me how a person without any of the above can make a free willed choice. Good question....do all choices have a function in morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 Which implies a moral absolute and a life/death equation in there somewhere.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted July 8 Super Moderator Share Posted July 8 18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said: Good question....do all choices have a function in morality? Irrelevant. To free moral agents, such an observation might be made. But Eve was neither free nor moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgarcito Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 And the example of Jesus is presented as an example of unbound humanity/moral absolute/and eternal life. It's interesting and huge odds in my opinion that He is put there as part of the "story/myth".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts