Contradictions in the Bible?

[MissileMan]

Adam & Eve chose to disobey God. They had freewill. They were given full run of the Garden of Eden except for the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil. They were deceived by the pride of the serpent. Therefore by that very act they chose evil. Man's nature became evil redeemable only by the blood of Christ.

How could they have known it was wrong to disobey God before they ate from the tree?

 

[Phaedrus]

The story is very clear that they knew AFTER having eaten the Fruit, but not before. Are you aware of some indication that I am not aware of?

Honsetly, no

Allow me you ask a hypothetical, just to illuminate, and drive firmly home the point: If God ordered you to do evil--something you knew absolutely (by whatever means of absolute knowledge you need) to be evil--and you defied God's command to do this evil, by this definition of sin you assert, such defiance is still sin?

Yeah, case and point Abraham and Isaac

Is God's incapability of sin derived soley from the tautological assertion that God cannot defy himself? If so, is it then true, based soley on the assertion that He cannot sin, that God is not exempt from being evil?

I would say God is exempt from being evil by far more tangible means. Something along the lines of God = Good (Inherent to the doctrine unless you worship Satan, in which case it still might be true [Faust]).

What exactly was the nature of Adam and Eve's knowledge of God's will, and abiding by it?

He told them to (He told Milton too).

 

[Phaedrus]

How could they have known it was wrong to disobey God before they ate from the tree?

He told them not to eat the fruit. You're equating knowledge of Good and Evil with knowledge of right and wrong, they're different. Adam and Eve knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit

 

[MissileMan]

He told them not to eat the fruit. You're equating knowledge of Good and Evil with knowledge of right and wrong, they're different. Adam and Eve knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit

I disagree...perhaps you can explain though how you arrive at your conclusion that doing what is right isn't good, and doing what is wrong isn't evil.

 

[dilloduck]

He told them not to eat the fruit. You're equating knowledge of Good and Evil with knowledge of right and wrong, they're different. Adam and Eve knew they were not supposed to eat the fruit

The imporatant message is getting lost here. Man was like God before he disobeyed. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of man thinking he is somehow other than god. This little ego bubble of separation makes man think he is capable of all sorts of judgements and conclusions and results in his fears. Thinking he is separate is mans' greatest "sin".

 

[Phaedrus]

Biblical knowledge of Good and Evil, as far as I understand it, is not knowledge of right and wrong. IMHO it points more to a Freudian Super Ego being revealed. Whether or not we have that Super Ego, we can still determine right from wrong.

 

[Joz]

How could they have known it was wrong to disobey God before they ate from the tree?

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die Genesis 3:2 & 3

 

[Joz]

..... When you said, "Man is evil by nature; he couldn't have done it on his own.", the "...he couldn't have done it on his own..." part had nothing to do with the "Man is evil by nature;... portion of the sentence it was attached to, but rather the sentence before it: "But where do you think the boundries of society come from?"

Is your assertion then that man cannot, on his own, form boundaries of society because his nature is evil?

By Jove, I think he's got it.

 

[MissileMan]

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die Genesis 3:2 & 3

Yet we hold the young and infirm to a lower standard in recognition of a requirement to UNDERSTAND the difference between right and wrong. Without the knowledge of good and evil, how can there be an understanding?

 

[Joz]

The imporatant message is getting lost here. Man was like God before he disobeyed......

No he wasn't. God is God. There is no other.
That was Lucifer's problem wanting to be God's right-hand man; be on the same plane as Jesus. (and no wise cracks about the plane )

 

[dilloduck]

Biblical knowledge of Good and Evil, as far as I understand it, is not knowledge of right and wrong. IMHO it points more to a Freudian Super Ego being revealed. Whether or not we have that Super Ego, we can still determine right from wrong.

Super ego AND ego.

 

[dilloduck]

Yet we hold the young and infirm to a lower standard in recognition of a requirement to UNDERSTAND the difference between right and wrong. Without the knowledge of good and evil, how can there be an understanding?

We only hold them to a lower standard of responsibilty.

 

[LOki]

Honsetly, no

Thanks for the honesty.

Is it fair then to assert (at least for us to assert) that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong? I stipulate it is certain they considered it wrong afterward--it is the record.

Yeah, case and point Abraham and Isaac

Fine. And without further consideration it appears consistent.

It also appears consistent that a sin could possibly be the right thing to do. Yes?

I would say God is exempt from being evil by far more tangible means. Something along the lines of God = Good (Inherent to the doctrine unless you worship Satan, in which case it still might be true [Faust]).

Tautology does not mean tangible, arbitrary tautologies in particualr are not tangible. In any case if God = good, and everything He created = good, does that not mean God = everything He created? (A=C, B=C, A=B, A=B=C)

It seems to defy any separation of God from His creation, including man--so much so that man cannot sin because God cannot sin because God cannot defy himself. I just can't find that acceptable. That, or I can't find our assertions that we, eachother, sin to be terribly valid.

He told them to (He told Milton too).

Quite, but my parents told me the stove was hot--and not to touch it--yet I had no idea what that meant until after I touched the stove.

I see an important part of the consistency of your definition. Call my disobediance of my parents the sin--touching the stove was not wrong, it was not evil; it was merely harmful. Not harmful to my folks, not harmful to others and certainly not willfully harmful to myself, but still harmful to myself.

Is God's admontion against sin, an admonition against harming people, including one's self?

The imporatant message is getting lost here. Man was like God before he disobeyed. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of man thinking he is somehow other than god. This little ego bubble of separation makes man think he is capable of all sorts of judgements and conclusions and results in his fears. Thinking he is separate is mans' greatest "sin".

Nope. Unless God did not know good and evil, unless God saying that should man eat of the Tree of Life he'd be too much like Himself is not an indication that man was significantly different from God. Oh, no dilloduck, knowledge of good and evil AND immortality was to be too much like God. The real "greatest sin" is the assertions that make God to be so much like us.

No he wasn't. God is God. There is no other.
That was Lucifer's problem wanting to be God's right-hand man; be on the same plane as Jesus.

TESTIFY!!!!

Is your assertion then that man cannot, on his own, form boundaries of society because his nature is evil?

By Joe, I think he's got it.

Your assetion is completely unfounded. You provide no foundation for how society is created, what it is when it is created, nor why being good is necessary for it. Nor do you present any argument that man is by nature evil. If the Bible is an unquestionable authority on the subject, man was created good, not only good, but indeed, very good. Therefore the actual nature of man is to be very good, and being evil is defiance of the nature of man, NOT the nature of man.

 

[dilloduck]

Thanks for the honesty.

Is it fair then to assert (at least for us to assert) that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong? I stipulate it is certain they considered it wrong afterward--it is the record.

Fine. And without further consideration it appears consistent.

It also appears consistent that a sin could possibly be the right thing to do. Yes?

Tautology does not mean tangible, arbitrary tautologies in particualr are not tangible. In any case if God = good, and everything He created = good, does that not mean God = everything He created? (A=C, B=C, A=B, A=B=C)

It seems to defy any separation of God from His creation, including man--so much so that man cannot sin because God cannot sin because God cannot defy himself. I just can't find that acceptable. That, or I can't find our assertions that we, eachother, sin to be terribly valid.

Quite, but my parents told me the stove was hot--and not to touch it--yet I had no idea what that meant until after I touched the stove.

I see an important part of the consistency of your definition. Call my disobediance of my parents the sin--touching the stove was not wrong, it was not evil; it was merely harmful. Not harmful to my folks, not harmful to others and certainly not willfully harmful to myself, but still harmful to myself.

Is God's admontion against sin, an admonition against harming people, including one's self?

Nope. Unless God did not know good and evil, unless God saying that should man eat of the Tree of Life he'd be too much like Himself is not an indication that man was significantly different from God. Oh, no dilloduck, knowledge of good and evil AND immortality was to be too much like God. The real "greatest sin" is the assertions that make God to be so much like us.
TESTIFY!!!!

Your assetion is completely unfounded. You provide no foundation for how society is created, what it is when it is created, nor why being good is necessary for it. Nor do you present any argument that man is by nature evil. If the Bible is an unquestionable authority on the subject, man was created good, not only good, but indeed, very good. Therefore the actual nature of man is to be very good, and being evil is defiance of the nature of man, NOT the nature of man.

I guess it's time to drag out the ferral children stories

Call my disobediance of my parents the sin--touching the stove was not wrong, it was not evil; it was merely harmful. Not harmful to my folks, not harmful to others and certainly not willfully harmful to myself, but still harmful to myself

YES--sinning hurts--that's the more the message than sin is 'evil'.
Advising people not to sin is a way to protect them from hurt and hurting. It's a kind warning, not a moral judgement.

 

[LOki]

YES--sinning hurts--that's the more the message than sin is 'evil'.
Advising people not to sin is a way to protect them from hurt and hurting. It's a kind warning, not a moral judgement.

Superb!

Phaedrus, in addition to my other response to you, do you agree with dilloducks assessment that moral judgements are not judgements of sin?

 

[dilloduck]

Superb!

Phaedrus, in addition to my other response to you, do you agree with dilloducks assessment that moral judgements are not judgements of sin?

A moral judgement is simply stating that you think something is good or bad.
A "sinner" is doing something that harms which is bad. Do I have a right to judge people? Sure I do. I judge them by what they do and they judge me by what I do. Lets not try to pretend we are too stupid to be able to tell the difference. Is our judgement always accurate? Of course not. Should we quit trying? Of course not.

 

[Phaedrus]

Is it fair then to assert that Adam and Eve knew, before eating the Fruit, that disobeying God was wrong?

It's fair to assert anything, the better question is "is it reasonable?" and yes, it is.

It also appears consistent that a sin could possibly be the right thing to do. Yes?

Subjectivley, yep. I have no idea what Truth is however, so who knows?

In any case if God = good, and everything He created = good, does that not mean God = everything He created? (A=C, B=C, A=B, A=B=C)

Here's the thing though, I never said everything he created was "good" in the sense you are using. Life is "good" but what composes it isn't necessarily so. You have to learn to appreciate the good, and savor the bad.

Life is the sum total, the absolute value of positive and negative experiences. To live without the good would be tragic, to live without the bad a travesty. It is sometimes only through great strife that you can truly find yourself.

God, on the other hand, is purely good. He created existence knowing the bad would add to the good. His intentions were always pure. This is why I referenced Faust, as God uses the Devil to do good.

Is God's admontion against sin, an admonition against harming people, including one's self?

Before Dante invented Hell, all there was was being far from God. When you sin you distance yourself from God. If you die without having repented you are eternally estranged. This is the most possible harm you can do to yourself.

 

[Phaedrus]

do you agree with dilloducks assessment that moral judgements are not judgements of sin?

They can coincide depending on the person, but they are not inherentley attached.

 

[Joz]

Yet we hold the young and infirm to a lower standard in recognition of a requirement to UNDERSTAND the difference between right and wrong. Without the knowledge of good and evil, how can there be an understanding?

I don't fully understand what you're asking here? Care to help me out?

 

[Phaedrus]

Yet we hold the young and infirm to a lower standard in recognition of a requirement to UNDERSTAND the difference between right and wrong. Without the knowledge of good and evil, how can there be an understanding?

Children are in the process of developing their Super Ego, and do you mean mentally infirm? The Super Ego points to Good and Evil, and until it is developed, you are reliant on a parental figure (God for Adam and Eve) for guidance as to what is right and wrong.

Note: I am still upholding my distinction between right/wrong and good/evil. You are eventually capable of recognizing Good/Evil, whereas you are told what is right and wrong. They often coincide, but are different. There is such a thing as relative good, but there is no relative right.

In the same sense, I don't like using the term evil, because it's an absolute, whereas wrong has varied degrees. It's an interesting contradiction in that right and evil are absolutes, whereas good and wrong aren't. What does this imply?

To get to your last point, understanding why certain things are right/wrong isn't necessary. Simply the knowledge they are such is all you need. Knowledege of Good/Evil does need to be justified IMHO. Not necesarrily by reason, however.