Deep-seated fear "What if you're wrong?"

[Wesley]

The concept that I should go to jail because my father may have killed someone is so completely absurd and unjust an idea as to be laughed at if presented as a good punishment in an elementary school classroom.

 

Let alone who knows how many generations back Adam and Eve was (if the myth even would have any truth to it, which there is not a lot of evidence for).

 

This is also illustrating how threats are used against me when I did nothing wrong, but rather some possible ancestor thousands or millions of years ago may have done something they were not told to, which in itself is quite an absurd story.

[alexakarpov]

The concept that I should go to jail because my father may have killed someone is so completely absurd and unjust an idea as to be laughed at if presented as a good punishment in an elementary school classroom.

You are absolutely correct in that no one is responsible for a crime of the other. This is correct, moral, and I accept this, and hold to that view myself.But, if you but re-examine my thought experiment, you will see that there is nothing of the sort present. By drinking from the bottle - which you were *warned* not to drink from! - you're corrupted your genes. Now, your offspring are facing the consequences of your actions. They are not "guilty" of anything that you did, it should be obvious. Yet, they do bear the consequences of what you have done, because mechanism of genetics is built this way.

Let alone who knows how many generations back Adam and Eve was (if the myth even would have any truth to it, which there is not a lot of evidence for).

The consideration of how many generations ago it was is irrelevant to the scope of our discussion. You cannot call physics "unjust" or "unethical" if children in the village are born deformed a thousand years *after* you have dumped radioactive toxic waste upstream of the village - maybe toxins are seeping into the water very slowly? And/or maybe the half-life of the radioactive waster is 2000 years, so the water is still radio-active. Please, don't throw irrelevant pieces into the puzzle - you're distracting yourself from the questions I'm posing.

This is also illustrating how threats are used against me when I did nothing wrong, but rather some possible ancestor thousands or millions of years ago may have done something they were not told to, which in itself is quite an absurd story.

There are no threats, and so far neither you, nor Witin were successful in pointing out the alleged duress either. There are, I repeat, consequences. Just as in my example you have corrupted your DNA by drinking from the bottle before you received the necessary portion of a "pre-cursor" agent, in Christianity man tasted of a Fruit (which, of course, was there for him to eat, *after* he is ready to do so), And, just as in my example you have corrupted your DNA, and will now pass the mutation to your children, same happened to Adam and Eve characters in our book - they've damaged their human nature, and passed that damage onto all the following generations.No duress, just consequences.

[Wesley]

God created this situation. Therefore he is punishing us for the sins of past generations. If God creates physics, he is not morally exempt from these threats and consequences (not that your idea of corrupted DNA or "original sin") has anything to do with science, physics, or biology.

 

I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

[alexakarpov]

God created this situation. Therefore he is punishing us for the sins of past generations. If God creates physics, he is not morally exempt from these threats and consequences (not that your idea of corrupted DNA or "original sin") has anything to do with science, physics, or biology. I have no interest in continuing this conversation.

OK, so it is the same argument, then, as what liberals use, when they say I am responsible for the death of a starving person by not feeding him. I "created the situation", by not giving him food. No matter what behaviour and what choices led him to that state.I do not require (or force) you to continue this conversation. But insofar as you're making statements which pertain to the conversation, I don't think it's unethical to respond to them.Cheers.

[Kevin Beal]

OK, so it is the same argument, then, as what liberals use, when they say I am responsible for the death of a starving person by not feeding him. I "created the situation", by not giving him food. No matter what behaviour and what choices led him to that state.

It's nothing like that, actually, since I didn't create the homeless person.

 

If you had a child and didn't feed him on the other hand...

 

God is directly responsible, whereas I could be very distantly responsible in some abstract way (at best).

 

Your argument is specious.

[alexakarpov]

It's nothing like that, actually, since I didn't create the homeless person. If you had a child and didn't feed him on the other hand... God is directly responsible, whereas I could be very distantly responsible in some abstract way (at best). Your argument is specious.

God didn't create a "homeless" person. He created a free person, who then became "homeless" through his own choices, and is facing consequences of his actions.Instead of calling my argument false, please demonstrate why it is false; I know I am in a minority here, but I am sure you understand that neither a majority of voters, nor their emotional state, make arguments "true" or "false".If talking about God is difficult (which it absolutely is), then I urge you to stick to the thought experiment about the three men at the table with a bottle, and help me find "duress" or "coercion".

[Kevin Beal]

God didn't create a "homeless" person. He created a free person, who then became "homeless" through his own choices, and is facing consequences of his actions.

My darn kid keeps telling me that he's hungry and I keep tellin' him to figure it out.

 

The fact that he knows exactly what choices the homeless man will make, why he will make them, the fact that he gave him choice in the first place, that he engineered a system where those destructive choices were appealing, that he gave him suppression and repression, that he gave him parents bad enough to dramatically increase his chances of becoming homeless.

 

It doesn't actually matter how much choice you give the man when the entire universe is set up in a particular way by your god's design. This is like telling me that I can point a gun at a guy and tell him to make a choice and then condemn him for his choice because he chose it.

 

All those natural deaths become murders when you say a god designed it. You die of a freak disease. God murdered you in a slow and painful manner. He tortured billions of people then. He is the most evil entity that ever could exist.

 

You don't read. I told you exactly how it's a false argument. And I choose to address the issue the way I would like to. I'm sorry you feel ganged up on, but I find what you're saying incredibly offensive.

 

God is not responsible because of free will!?!?! Come on guy. This is a bad joke of an argument. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but what you're saying...

[alexakarpov]

My darn kid keeps telling me that he's hungry and I keep tellin' him to figure it out.

This situation has nothing to do with the story in Genesis - humans were not hungry, they were not under any environmentals stress, nor under any duress. 

The fact that he knows exactly what choices the homeless man will make, why he will make them, the fact that he gave him choice in the first place

... has nothing to do with human freedom to go either left or right; to eat or not eat, being warned of consequences of eating. Freedom is the most wonderful mystery of Creation - we don't know how it works, whence it came, how it's executed... but we do believe choices and freedom are real things; maybe, they are most "real" things in all of existence =) 

that he engineered a system where those destructive choices were appealing

Um... what? He engineered a system where humans had _freedom_. That's the only thing that was "engineered". You're throwing these words, but could you point to a hard, cold fact of duress? Of initiatory force? I could point you to a fact of deception, carried out by that 'Devil' character, but nothing else. 

It doesn't actually matter how much choice you give the man when the entire universe is set up in a particular way by your god's design. This is like telling me that I can point a gun at a guy and tell him to make a choice and then condemn him for his choice because he chose it.

A great example, sir! - now show me that gun, and I will admit my utter defeat (not to mention utter blindness, as I have so far failed to see that gun). 

All those natural deaths become murders when you say a god designed it. You die of a freak disease. God murdered you in a slow and painful manner. He tortured billions of people then. He is the most evil entity that ever could exist.

God designed a system with emergency mechanisms, yes. But He didn't - wouldn't! - design a system where force was used to limit human freedom.Would you lobotomize your kid, out of love, to protect him from making "bad" choices, which, if made, would lead to his suffering? God wouldn't - because that would go against love, and against freedom.So, once more - show me the gun, show me duress, show me the initiation of force in that story. And if you bring me "human capacity for error" (i.e. "freedom") as a root of all evil, then I'll be very disappointed.

[Kevin Beal]

You are being obtuse in order to avoid an obvious conclusion. I could not address what you are saying without repeating myself (again).

 

You are afraid, as was predicted by the OP.

[alexakarpov]

You are being obtuse in order to avoid an obvious conclusion. I could not address what you are saying without repeating myself (again). You are afraid, as was predicted by the OP.

so, asking a simple question of "where is the gun", "where is duress", "where is coercion", is now "obtuse". I suppose, *your* brand of atheism *is* a kind of religion after all - if you fall back to this kind of arguments, instead of answering the simple questions. "A belief that there is no God, and the God from Genesis 1 is evil". An axiom, them, not a theorem.

[Wiltin]

 

 

 Freedom is the most wonderful mystery of Creation - we don't know how it works, whence it came, how it's executed...

 

free·dom  [free-duhm] 

noun

1.

the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won hisfreedom after a retrial.

2.

exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

 

so, asking a simple question of "where is the gun", "where is duress", "where is coercion", is now "obtuse". I suppose, *your* brand of atheism *is* a kind of religion after all - if you fall back to this kind of arguments, instead of answering the simple questions. "A belief that there is no God, and the God from Genesis 1 is evil". An axiom, them, not a theorem.

 

Are you exempt from the external control, interference, regulation, etc. of God?

[Kevin Beal]

Are you exempt from the external control, interference, regulation, etc. of God?

Yes if it's convenient and no if it's convenient. (It's a wonderful mystery of creation.)

[alexakarpov]

Are you exempt from the external control, interference, regulation, etc. of God?

Sir, you have avoided my most simple questions ("where is coercion in this situation?", "where is a gun?", "where is initiation of force?"), and yet you come back with your own questions, which do not pertain to the situation?Please, I am not here to debate theology. I came with a question about ethics and morals; specifically, whether a certain character in a certain book must be deemed evil or not, based of a core set of anarchist principles, the first of which is non-initiation of force. The Book in question is Genesis 1.Having said that, I will now answer you question, in hopes that it might result in you answering mine =)In Christianity, no one can be "exempt" from anything regarding God. He does what He wills. This includes acts of killing people, including people who have not committed any acts which they themselves have agreed to regard as punishable by death. If that makes God immoral, then He is trivially, immoral, there's no argument here; neither did I claim Him to be bound by our definition of "moral".

[Wiltin]

Sir, you have avoided my most simple questions ("where is coercion in this situation?", "where is a gun?", "where is initiation of force?"), and yet you come back with your own questions, which do not pertain to the situation?Please, I am not here to debate theology. I came with a question about ethics and morals; specifically, whether a certain character in a certain book must be deemed evil or not, based of a core set of anarchist principles, the first of which is non-initiation of force. The Book in question is Genesis 1.Having said that, I will now answer you question, in hopes that it might result in you answering mine =)In Christianity, no one can be "exempt" from anything regarding God. He does what He wills. This includes acts of killing people, including people who have not committed any acts which they themselves have agreed to regard as punishable by death. If that makes God immoral, then He is trivially, immoral, there's no argument here; neither did I claim Him to be bound by our definition of "moral".

 

I've explained my position very clearly, you are not free. The coercion is the threat of hell. The gun is God's power. The initiation of force is in the use of that power against people.

 

I haven't argued against your world view. God may be evil and still exist. You've played around with a lot of theology in order to avoid the obvious conclusion. I didn't ask if Adam and Eve were free, it is irrelevant. I asked if YOU were free. If no one can be exempt from God's will, then no one is free. It is right there in the definition of freedom, and it isn't a 'great mystery'.

[alexakarpov]

I've explained my position very clearly, you are not free. The coercion is the threat of hell. The gun is God's power. The initiation of force is in the use of that power against people. I haven't argued against your world view. God may be evil and still exist. You've played around with a lot of theology in order to avoid the obvious conclusion. I didn't ask if Adam and Eve were free, it is irrelevant. I asked if YOU were free. If no one can be exempt from God's will, then no one is free. It is right there in the definition of freedom, and it isn't a 'great mystery'.

Yes, I am free. But, since I believe in God, I also believe in consequences which my actions in life will have in eternity. It doesn't limit my freedom in any way - but, since I want to avoid some of the consequences, I try to act accordingly.I am perfectly able to understand, if your definition of freedom requires that there are no negative consequences (like eternal damnation). In this case, I will simply state that we, as philosophers, have a profound difference in our definition of a concept of "freedom".The reason why I insist on hearing an answer to my questions pertaining to Genesis 1 was specifically to demonstrate, that, in Christianity, present human condition, including the possibility of eternal damnation, is not God's creation, but a consequence of free human choice, made without duress, without coercion. Basically, God didn't "create hell", humans did - it's entirely a consequence of their free choice and free action.

[Wiltin]

Yes, I am free. But, since I believe in God, I also believe in consequences which my actions in life will have in eternity. It doesn't limit my freedom in any way - but, since I want to avoid some of the consequences, I try to act accordingly.

 

This is the mentality of a slave who has been broken.

 

I am perfectly able to understand, if your definition of freedom requires that there are no negative consequences (like eternal damnation). In this case, I will simply state that we, as philosophers, have a profound difference in our definition of a concept of "freedom".

 

 

I used the dictionary definition.

 

The reason why I insist on hearing an answer to my questions pertaining to Genesis 1 was specifically to demonstrate, that, in Christianity, present human condition, including the possibility of eternal damnation, is not God's creation

 

 

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Matt 25:41

 

Who prepared everlasting fire?

 

, but a consequence of free human choice, made without duress, without coercion. Basically, God didn't "create hell", humans did

 

 

Who are these super humans capable of such a feat?

 

 - it's entirely a consequence of their free choice and free action.

 

 

Not my choice, not my action, and not yours either. You are not free, sir.

[alexakarpov]

I used the dictionary definition.

 If dictionary definitions were enough, why would we need philosophical discussions?

Who prepared everlasting fire?

You insist on getting deeper into theology, eh? =) OK.It's a figure of speech. "Everlasting fire" is God Himself. All the beings which were created eternal (humans, angels) will be with God for eternity; those who "attuned" themselves to Him, will be "in paradise"; those who didn't, "in hell". These are the negative consequences of a free choice - originally, humans were attuned correctly, by design, but their condition was not perfected yet; then they lost that attunement through their free actions; now they have to fix the problem, if they want to avoid the consequences. It is not an easy task, but they do get a lot of help on the way. The biggest challenge is to believe they need the fix, of course =) 

Not my choice, not my action, and not yours either. You are not free, sir.

If you poison the well with radioactive waste with a half-life of 10000 years, and your child drinks from it, and becomes sick, it doesn't mean he is not free. But it does mean your actions have consequences on his health. There's no "freedom" here - only consequences. Let's say it didn't kill him, but it did cause some sickening mutation. Now his child inherits those broken genes, and his child, and so on. They are not responsible for your actions? Absolutely; they are only responsible for their own actions. But their genes don't reset themselves; the keep on accumulating the damage. Initial one, caused by your actions, and additional ones, caused by their own pollution on the well.

[cynicist]

The reason why I insist on hearing an answer to my questions pertaining to Genesis 1 was specifically to demonstrate, that, in Christianity, present human condition, including the possibility of eternal damnation, is not God's creation, but a consequence of free human choice, made without duress, without coercion. Basically, God didn't "create hell", humans did - it's entirely a consequence of their free choice and free action.

 

You say that going to hell is simply the consequence of free choices, but who created hell and the rules that govern who goes there? The equivalent in human terms would be if I gave birth to a child and raised them in my house, and then said that any time I spanked my child it was entirely their choice to be spanked since they were aware of the rules and their consequences. If I'm the parent, then I'm deciding what the rules are and the consequences for breaking them. Without my involvement there would be no spanking at all.

 

If there is a god and he is all powerful, then as the creator of the world and the conditions that we live under, he would be completely responsible for what happens in it. All of the positive and all of the negative. It would be well within his power to stop death, disease, decay, child abuse, rape, murder, etc. What is the point of creating free choice for humans and this tree with 'forbidden fruit', as well as a serpent to tempt them, besides as a sick sort of game?

 

If I left a frying pan on a heated stove where my child could access it, and told them not to touch it, do we consider it the fault of the child or the parent if the child is burned? The parent obviously, since not only did they create the conditions for that situation to occur, but they also had greater knowledge and power than the child could ever have. (this isn't even comparable to god, since he would have the ultimate in both knowledge and power relative to human beings, and limitless responsibility as a result)

 

This is the knowledge that all christians must hide or ignore, if they want to continue to believe that the god they worship is benevolent.

[Wesley]

Colossians 1:16

 

16 For by6 him all things were created, lin heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether mthrones or ndominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created othrough him and for him.

 

John 1:3

 

3 eAll things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

 

Revelation 1:18

 

18 and the living one. yI died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and zI have the keys of Death and Hades.

 

(For those who don't know, "words in red" is a common way to quote when Jesus speaks in the Bible)

 

 

Matthew 25:41

 

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, e‘Depart from me, you fcursed, into gthe eternal fire prepared for hthe devil and his angels.

 

 

2 Peter 2:4–9

 

4 For if God did not spare uangels when they sinned, but vcast them into hell1 and committed them to chains2 of gloomy darkness wto be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, butxpreserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought ya flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6 if by zturning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction,amaking them an example of bwhat is going to happen to the ungodly;3 7 and cif he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked 8 (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, dhe was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); 9 then ethe Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials,4 and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,

 

Luke 12:5

 

5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him bwho, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell.1 Yes, I tell you, fear him!

 

 

Mark 3:28-29

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

28 I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. 29 But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.

 

 

 

Proverbs 6:16–19

 

16  There are dsix things that the Lord hates,

dseven that are an abomination to him:

17  ehaughty eyes, fa lying tongue,

and ghands that shed innocent blood,

18  ha heart that devises wicked plans,

ifeet that make haste to run to evil,

19  ja false witness who kbreathes out lies,

and one who asows discord among brothers.

 

Isaiah 5:25

 

25  Therefore gthe anger of the Lord was kindled against his people,

and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them,

and hthe mountains quaked;

and their corpses were ias refuse

in the midst of the streets.

jFor all this his anger has not turned away,

and his hand is stretched out still.

 

Matthew 25:41
"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels ...' " (NKJV)

 

Isaiah 66:24

"And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." (NIV)

 

Matthew 25:46
"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (NIV)

 

2 Thessalonians 1:9

They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power. (NLT)

 

Proverbs 23:14

Physical discipline may well save them from death. (NLT)

 

(Yea, spank kids and they won't go to hell)

 

 

 

 

I may have gotten carried away. However, from these versus, we can see that:

 

1. God created hell

 

2. Hell is a punishment

 

3. Hell is eternal

 

4. The only unforgivable sin is speaking against God

 

5. God (and Jesus) have the keys to hell and the authority to cast you in hell or not

 

6. If you spank your kids, you can save them from going to hell

[alexakarpov]

You say that going to hell is simply the consequence of free choices, but who created hell and the rules that govern who goes there?

Just to be precise, as I've pointed out above - there's no "hell", and it was never "created". There's God, and eternity (i.e. being outside of time). Since humans are created eternal, that's where they all end up - with God, in eternity. Those who "attuned" themselves to Him will be, as it's often said, "in paradise"; those who didn't, "in hell". But that's really one and the same place (except it's not a "place", but that word is convenient enough).Neither are there any "rules", except what the sentence above explains. It's not that some people are deemed "good", and are put in room A, and other people are judged "bad", and are sent into room B. If that was the case, I'd agree with you who say this God character is mean, evil, etc., if it was His arbitrary will that some suffer, and some not. Not so - His will is that everyone be saved; but whether our will is in agreement with His, that He doesn't override. 

The equivalent in human terms would be if I gave birth to a child and raised them in my house, and then said that any time I spanked my child it was entirely their choice to be spanked since they were aware of the rules and their consequences. If I'm the parent, then I'm deciding what the rules are and the consequences for breaking them. Without my involvement there would be no spanking at all.

You can make a choice to not spank your child, and that would be a moral and ethical choice - you are choosing to not commit violence against your child. You choose between violence - and love; coercion and patience; inflicting pain, or providing care.God, however, has made a choice already, and it was not a choice of violence, or pain, or coercion - it was His will to create humans, as eternal beings distinct from Himself. Now, there's nowhere else to go in the end, but be with Him. All the space and time and nature and the world and all - it's kind of like a staging ground, or a crib, built for His children. 

If there is a god and he is all powerful, then as the creator of the world and the conditions that we live under, he would be completely responsible for what happens in it.

Yes - this is correct, and it would include human action, if and only if humans were designed as irresponsible and non-free beings. But, since they were created as free and responsible, they are unique in that they are themselves responsible for what they do. This is the ultimate glory, so to say, of human beings in Christianity - they have this property; they are given reason, and senses, and freedom, and this means responsibility also. The are, alone among the living things, responsible. 

It would be well within his power to stop death, disease, decay, child abuse, rape, murder, etc.

Yes, it is in His power - but doing so would mean stripping humans of freedom. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Freedom is, first and foremost, responsibility. I keep seeing many libertarian and anarchist memes on that, and I love them - yes! Freedom is responsibility! Not "entitlement"! My liberal friends drive me crazy with their babbling about how not providing "free education" or "free health-care" means "denying" people "freedom to be healthy" or "freedom to be educated".

What is the point of creating free choice for humans and this tree with 'forbidden fruit', as well as a serpent to tempt them, besides as a sick sort of game?

Serpent was not "created to tempt them" - he (Devil) was created free, just as humans there created free. Serpent then decided he'll rebell, and destroy humans. Whatever... As for the Fruit - the point was to give it to humans to eat, of course, but after they exercise their freedom and obey the commandment of not eating it, and then become prepared to eat it, at which point the restriction would be lifted, and the eating phase would commence.  

If I left a frying pan on a heated stove where my child could access it, and told them not to touch it, do we consider it the fault of the child or the parent if the child is burned? The parent obviously, since not only did they create the conditions for that situation to occur, but they also had greater knowledge and power than the child could ever have.

Ah, but what if the child is 18 years old? Still parent's fault? I mean, if a child is not capable of reasoning, listening and understanding the dangers and consequences, then yes it is parent's fault. But if they are - as Adam and Eve clearly were, because they tried to refuse Serpent's suggestion, which shows they knew about the restriction and the consequences.The truth is - sooner or later, your child is going to go out in the wild, and make his decisions, and act on his own, and be responsible for the consequences of his actions. That's what loving your child demands - you let him/her out the door, and wish them success. That's what happened between God and humans too; and the road is rough, but it's worth the goal, or so we believe.

[powder]

wow, I haven't been involved in this kind of debate for a long time, but I remember that same kind of unique logic that bends to fit these kinds of moral inconsistencies that are the core of the religious belief system:

 

god wants to be in control and be worshiped and obeyed, like any tyrant slave master.  His most loved and powerful angel decides he wants to make his own choices in defiance of god's wishes so there is a war in heaven.  Of course, a violent altercation, because that is the best idea god could come up with to the resolve the dispute...  

 

well, where does lucifer his fallen ones get banished to?  earth, where god has created a paradise for his most beloved creation... cuz that's the best idea he could come up with... 

 

its like making your kids live with the hell's angels gang and then getting pissed cuz they make poor choices.  

 

I spent years studying the history of religion, esp christianity - I was raised RC and had a few questions.  the ironic thing that christians do not even realize is that the 'modern' christrian doctrine is nothing like what early christians believed.  

 

good for you alexa for taking a run at these guys though, hope you're having fun.  

[alexakarpov]

good for you alexa for taking a run at these guys though, hope you're having fun.

Thanks - I am. It's been a while since I last had a chance to debate these things with people. I'm just a tad bit worried about the fact that I'm getting "downvoted" on every second post =) I hope this doesn't result in me getting automated ban, or something =)I don't think the comparison with Hell's Angels is valid. Nothing in the Genesis 3 story suggests that humans were under any kind of duress or coercion or environmental stress. There was a kind of a philosophical dispute, pure and simple; perhaps, the first one in the world =)1) God: Don't eat that Fruit, you'll die.2) Satan: Is that right that you shouldn't eat anything?3) Eve: No, only the Fruit is off limits, 'cause we'll die.4) Satan: Oh no, you won't die, God lied. You'll be awesome.5) Eve: Hm, I see. And the fruit is attractive. *munch-munch*6) God: Adam, what's up? Did you eat the Fruit which I told you to not eat?7) Adam: Uh... it's this woman - that you gave me - she did it!8) God: Eve??9) Uh... that serpent lied to me, so I.. yeah.10) God: OK, plan B. Banishment for you two, lest you ruin the whole experiment. See you later.So, that's the conflict1) A warning is given, and, very important bit - no seat belts. They're warned about the consequences, and need to exercise their freedom. I love the purity of the situation.2) A first sales pitch - is it true that he said "For all X, do not eat X" (the universal quantifier)3) No, the condition is weaker - "There exist an x in X, such that we should not eat x, or face bad consequences"4) A second sales pitch - "God lied, there will be no bad consequences, there will be good ones".5)Majoritarian democracy in action!Notice how God got outnumbered 2 to 1 - God said 'nay', Satan said 'aye', and Eve said 'aye'. Then immediately after, Adam denied responsibility, shifting it to Eve; Eve, likewise, denied responsibility, shifting it on a Serpent. Freedom's tough, right? Easier to appoint someone else to bear the burden of responsibility, don't we see that around us today?Finally, in this conversation, other participants deny Adam's and Eve's responsibility, shifting it on God. The only way for God to prevent the Fall would be to limit human freedom in some way; either by lobotomizing humans, stripping them of free will, or constructing a barrier around the Tree. Neither is acceptable to Him, exactly because the very purpose of the experiment was for humans to exercise their free will.So now we're in "plan B" - fighting through the consequences.

[powder]

Well, alexa, I just stated that early christians believed a very different story than the one you were taught and you didn't even mention it or show any curiosity.  I will play along for a little while longer cuz I am just curious to see how long you will keep preaching the same story without loosing a beat.  that is the kind of stuff will get you plenty of down votes.  

 

I think it is OK to be a christian if that works for you, but isn't knowing as much as you can about the origins of your belief system a valid pursuit in that regard?  I wanted to be a good christian so I did a lot of research.  did you know that the biggest dispute in the early church in the first 2 centuries was about whether or not to include the old testament in the scriptures - followers of Jesus did not think that it belonged and that it told the story of a different god than the one Jesus spoke of.  they held to their beliefs for centuries until the church of Rome finally killed off the last of them (the Cathars) in the 12th century after centuries of crusades.  who do you think the Roman church was labeling heretics?  do you know about the changes Constantine and Justinian made to the faith?  do you know who was handling Luther and King James who gave us the modern version of the christian belief system?  does that peak your interest or give you pause at all?  

 

I don't care about your definition of duress, it is irrelevant to the argument that has been made against your position.  I will add some dialogue to your conversation with god below:

 

Thanks - I am. It's been a while since I last had a chance to debate these things with people. I'm just a tad bit worried about the fact that I'm getting "downvoted" on every second post =) I hope this doesn't result in me getting automated ban, or something =)

I don't think the comparison with Hell's Angels is valid. Nothing in the Genesis 3 story suggests that humans were under any kind of duress or coercion or environmental stress. There was a kind of a philosophical dispute, pure and simple; perhaps, the first one in the world =)

 

is it not clear in the scriptures that the 'fallen ones' were banished to earth and that they rule over the world?  so don't call it 'duress', but it is way messed up and sadistic, just like sending the hell's angels to live with your kids - the analogy fits.  saying that there was no 'duress' is evading the issue.  

1) God: Don't eat that Fruit, you'll die.

Adam:  Why the Frack did you put it here then? Is this some sort of messed up obedience test?

2) Satan: Is that right that you shouldn't eat anything?

Adam:  what the frack is he doing here?
3) Eve: No, only the Fruit is off limits, 'cause we'll die.
4) Satan: Oh no, you won't die, God lied. You'll be awesome.

Eve:  who sent you here?  why are we having this debate?  
5) Eve: Hm, I see. And the fruit is attractive. *munch-munch*
6) God: Adam, what's up? Did you eat the Fruit which I told you to not eat?

Adam:  that surprises you?  what the frack is wrong with you?  are you a moron?  

7) Adam: Uh... it's this woman - that you gave me - she did it!
8) God: Eve??

Adam:  why do you keep asking stupid questions that you already know the answer to?  
9) Uh... that serpent lied to me, so I.. yeah.

Eve:  why did you let him anywhere near us?  you know we are no match for him in any way.  are you fracking stupid and sadistic?  
10) God: OK, plan B. Banishment for you two, lest you ruin the whole experiment. See you later.

Eve:  Really?  that is your best response to this mess you created?  You really are messed up... 

So, that's the conflict

1) A warning is given, and, very important bit - no seat belts. They're warned about the consequences, and need to exercise their freedom. I love the purity of the situation.
2) A first sales pitch - is it true that he said "For all X, do not eat X" (the universal quantifier)
3) No, the condition is weaker - "There exist an x in X, such that we should not eat x, or face bad consequences"
4) A second sales pitch - "God lied, there will be no bad consequences, there will be good ones".
5)Majoritarian democracy in action!
Notice how God got outnumbered 2 to 1 - God said 'nay', Satan said 'aye', and Eve said 'aye'. Then immediately after, Adam denied responsibility, shifting it to Eve; Eve, likewise, denied responsibility, shifting it on a Serpent. Freedom's tough, right? Easier to appoint someone else to bear the burden of responsibility, don't we see that around us today?

Finally, in this conversation, other participants deny Adam's and Eve's responsibility, shifting it on God.

 

In the creation story as it is taught Adam and Eve are no more responsible for this mess than children are for the circumstances created for them by their parents.  this has been pointed out already.  

 

The only way for God to prevent the Fall would be to limit human freedom in some way; either by lobotomizing humans, stripping them of free will, or constructing a barrier around the Tree. Neither is acceptable to Him, exactly because the very purpose of the experiment was for humans to exercise their free will.
So now we're in "plan B" - fighting through the consequences.

 

the only way, huh?  wow, I'm not even god and I can think of a dozen ways off the top of my head to handle this better.  you presume much to imagine what god is not capable of.  

to be clear alexa, I do not buy into any of this religious dogma I am only pointing out, like others have, that to be taken seriously it at least has to be morally and logically consistent.  

[alexakarpov]

does that peak your interest or give you pause at all?

I know a great deal about the history of Christianity (though mostly in the East - the West all went heretic in 10th century, as far as I'm concerned, but I know the history up to that point in great detail).What you claim to be "the main question" is not at all correct. There were many important questions -- first, donatism, then gnosticism, then arianism, then nestorianism, then iconoclasm, monothelitism, iconoclasm again. Then came the Great Schism. What you're talking about doesn't even have a name. Old testament was always the part of Christian scripture - it's relevance and importance is directly asserted in all the Gospels; it's the same religion, just version 2.0, perfected and completed by all the events between Incarnation and Resurrection. But none of that is relevant for the discussion here, I think? The discussion is about duress, coercion, initiation of force, or parental abandonment - all of the blames which people are trying to assign to this Christian God character, but so far not a single attempt that was made looks even remotely successful. It's all just emotions and false analogies. No one demonstrated a single act of violence,coercion, stress, duress - none whatsoever. Nor did anyone demonstrate any evidence that humans in Paradise were in some way, shape or form, mentally challenged or underdeveloped.Now this last bit really, really bothers me - why are libertarians and anarchists so averse to the idea of responsibility? When I was an atheist, I didn't believe in God, but the whole story of Genesis 3 made me inspired - that "God" treated as like equals, like free beings, capable and responsible... it is almost painful to see this rejection of responsibility, this strong desire to shift the blame to 'God' or 'Serpent', but away from humans. 

I don't care about your definition of duress, it is irrelevant to the argument that has been made against your position.  I will add some dialogue to your conversation with god below:

There were no arguments, just statements like "you are not free". 

to be clear alexa, I do not buy into any of this religious dogma I am only pointing out, like others have, that to be taken seriously it at least has to be morally and logically consistent.

Where am I inconsistent, then?Sir, you proceed to quote my example with a lot of "what the frack" inserted in there. But not a single one of those insertion proves or disproves anything. All you have done is demand that God remove Serpent from the Garden. Well, He didn't remove the Serpent. But what that has to do with free human choice? Did the Serpent force them to eat the Fruit? Did he destroy all other food, making it their only available sustenance? Did he hypnotize them? (now this last bit would be a deal-breaker -- God allowed an adversary, capable of overpowering and forcing His children, to be near them - criminal negligence, guilty as charged). No, no, and no. You didn't present any arguments, you appeal exclusively to emotions.

[powder]

OK, so you are on the other side of the great schism, it still does not change the first few centuries debate over the old testament, must studies took me outside of religious readings of history.  the eastern church was one with the church of Rome until the schism.  but you are right, it is not really pertinent to the discussion, just a point of interest for me.

 

I did not insert the 'what the frack' dialogue to prove anything.  It was simply to emphasize the moral incongruity of the situation.  

 

I no where demanded that god remove the serpent, I stated that he put him there.  you have misrepresented my argument and did not answer my question about whether the fallen ones were banished to earth and given dominion over it.  Is that not scripturally accurate, even in the eastern teachings?  If it is, then you have your coercion.  It does not matter that Adam and Eve were happy and carefree in the garden before the temptation, without duress as you say, the game was rigged.  

 

as you have pointed out repeatedly, God says:  "don't do this or else..."  what is the point of this test?  - this is not freedom, it is coercion.  it is plain.  he made the game, he sets the rules, he enacts the punishment.  how does that not add up for you?  

[Wiltin]

Debating theology is like arguing over who would win in a fight between batman and wolverine. This is why there are literally tens of thousands of different christian views. Don't like the way a particular doctrine feels? Try another flavor, there is something out there for everyone.

 

Since this is all speculative and based on scripture that gets interpreted and reinterpreted constantly, there is no way to nail a point home. Figure of speech here, metaphor there, and irony everywhere in between.

 

I tried the line of argument about freedom because it is an appeal to emotion rather than reason and evidence which atheists generally stick to. I thought a different approach might change the game up a bit, but it didn't in this case. It is still impossible to nail the most obvious point home in the mind of a believer, and in the end he just claims victory and has his faith strengthened.

 

I think my religious debate days are over.

[powder]

Debating theology is like arguing over who would win in a fight between batman and wolverine. This is why there are literally tens of thousands of different christian views. Don't like the way a particular doctrine feels? Try another flavor, there is something out there for everyone.Since this is all speculative and based on scripture that gets interpreted and reinterpreted constantly, there is no way to nail a point home. Figure of speech here, metaphor there, and irony everywhere in between.I tried the line of argument about freedom because it is an appeal to emotion rather than reason and evidence which atheists generally stick to. I thought a different approach might change the game up a bit, but it didn't in this case. It is still impossible to nail the most obvious point home in the mind of a believer, and in the end he just claims victory and has his faith strengthened.I think my religious debate days are over.

Are you kidding me?  Wolverine would take Batman for sure!  

 

Yes, I agree with you on all counts Wiltin.  I thought my religious debate days were over as well but I am sometimes still fascinated by how thick the wall can be.

 

the quote I have heard from Stef certainly rings true in my experience - "you cannot reason someone out of something they were no reasoned into"

 

I know a lot of religious people, and I don't know a single one who was not raised by an abusive/manipulative/controlling parental figure - I imagine that this makes it much more normal to accept the kind of violence and manipulation expressed in the religious stories like the one being discussed here.  and if it ain't a god, then the state will take its place... 

[alexakarpov]

I no where demanded that god remove the serpent, I stated that he put him there. you have misrepresented my argument

How is that? You seem to have pointed at Serpent's presence as a proof that God was immoral and evil - was He moral and good, he would've removed the Serpent. But that's baseless - Serpent didn't cause any violence against Adam and Eve - no doubt, because God would not, and did not, allow for it. You didn't use the word "demand", but you have underlined Serpent's presence in the Garden as a sign that God didn't "protect" His children and therefore was evil. That's the same thing as demanding that He removed the Serpent in order to qualify as "good". This is not "misrepresenting", this is exactly your argument. 

and did not answer my question about whether the fallen ones were banished to earth and given dominion over it.

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a question for me, or I didn't notice it. Of course they were not given the dominion over the earth. If they were, humans would be obliterated at once. In the book of Job, Satan has to receive a permission from God to torment Job - he can't do it on his own. Demons are almost completely powerless against humans; incident of demons possessing humans are very rare in Christian tradition, and almost always happen because humans willingly invite them in, looking for power or other benefits.  

as you have pointed out repeatedly, God says:  "don't do this or else..."  what is the point of this test?

As I have previously explained, the point was to confirm human maturity and power of human will - before they could join God, they needed to trust Him; they trusted Serpent instead. 

- this is not freedom, it is coercion.  it is plain.  he made the game, he sets the rules, he enacts the punishment.  how does that not add up for you?

OK, this is much better. "It is coercion" - I'm glad you've made the statement, which wasn't made here before. But I don't see coercion here, can you point at it? Was creating humans a coercion? Was giving them free will coercion? Was warning them of consequences coercion? Was not shielding them from the consequences - i.e. nullifying their freedom, by taking away responsibility - coercion?I ask that you defend your statement.

[powder]

well alexa, like is often the case with these discussions I have had with other believers, you really do have your own version of the christian belief system - esp if you think that the devil and his cohorts influence over mankind is limited to the occasional possession.   I would guess that you are just fine with god giving the devil permission to torment Job as well...  

 

I know you don't see the coercion.  you seem like a good fellow and I am sorry that you are able to accept such a violent and manipulative world view as you have described it in this creation myth - I suppose your parents/guardians had a lot to do with that.  

 

thanks for indulging me in this banter.  best of luck to you.  

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

I just tell them I'm not wrong.