Miracles...

Thomas_S_Hunterson

PDN wrote: »

That is nonsense. Lucifer was not the only conceivable agent that could present Adam & Eve with a choice between good and evil.

But you haven't answered my question. Why, without Lucifer's intervention, would Adam & Eve be on their own without all their descendants? I don't see any reason why Depeche Mode should think that.

I think we should save the incest debate for another time;) And as for what cain and abel did to procreate, well that beats me but I can only assume there was something untoward going on, and Satan, ever the sexual deviant, is prime suspect:D

Pompey Magnus

Sean_K wrote: »

If, as the poster mentioned, Lucifer had not intervened, we would never have discovered our free will, and would be god's pets. Mankind as we know it would not have existed.

Precisely. Even if it happened that I was born I would be nothing more than God's dog. We would not be human as we would not be able to appreciate what we have. Eternal happiness is infinitely devalued when you don't also experience sadness to contrast it with. Humans without the fall would have been like naked idiots on a constant supply of Heroin.

Ekancone

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Precisely. Even if it happened that I was born I would be nothing more than God's dog. We would not be human as we would not be able to appreciate what we have. Eternal happiness is infinitely devalued when you don't also experience sadness to contrast it with. Humans without the fall would have been like naked idiots on a constant supply of Heroin.

Exactly. Value comes with scarcity. Thats why diamonds are expensive and water is cheap, which is pretty bizarre when you actually think about it.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

That is nonsense. Lucifer was not the only conceivable agent that could present Adam & Eve with a choice between good and evil.

Here's one for you, by eating from the tree humanity gained the knowledge of good and evil. This means before they ate of the tree they had absolutely no knowledge of what was right and what was wrong. Even if God specifically told them not to eat from the tree Adam could not possibly have known that disobeying God was the wrong thing to do, as God had not given him such capabilities in reasoning. God then punishes Adam for a fault which was of God's own making. Had He given Adam the ability to know what was right and wrong in the first place then perhaps Adam would have chosen differently.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Here's one for you, by eating from the tree humanity gained the knowledge of good and evil. This means before they ate of the tree they had absolutely no knowledge of what was right and what was wrong.

Integer divide by zero.

[Head explodes]

Pompey Magnus

We could go as far as saying that Lucifer gave humanity our very morality. A moral action is entirely dependent on the actor knowing the difference between right and wrong. If God has His way there could not possibly have been human morality as he denied us this ability.

Poor Lucifer gets a raw deal, when someone commits evil it was Lucifer at work but when someone does good it is evidence of God in action. It seems as though both bad and good actions are thanks to Lucifer. History is written by the victors though so God gets the credit which he doesn't deserve.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Here's one for you, by eating from the tree humanity gained the knowledge of good and evil. This means before they ate of the tree they had absolutely no knowledge of what was right and what was wrong. Even if God specifically told them not to eat from the tree Adam could not possibly have known that disobeying God was the wrong thing to do, as God had not given him such capabilities in reasoning. God then punishes Adam for a fault which was of God's own making. Had He given Adam the ability to know what was right and wrong in the first place then perhaps Adam would have chosen differently.

Of course that isn't what Christians (or Jews) believe. We don't believe that before they ate from the tree that Adam & Eve had absolutely no knowledge of what was right or what was wrong.

However, if such a straw man provides you with some entertainment among yourselves then carry on. Far be it from me to interfere with your in-jokes.

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Of course that isn't what Christians (or Jews) believe. We don't believe that before they ate from the tree that Adam & Eve had absolutely no knowledge of what was right or what was wrong.

However, if such a straw man provides you with some entertainment among yourselves then carry on. Far be it from me to interfere with your in-jokes.

Sorry for our error, but you must admit that story makes about as much sense as a jewish Nazi of gypsy descent. I mean, what value does happiness have when it is infinite?

None, if you ask me.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Of course that isn't what Christians (or Jews) believe. We don't believe that before they ate from the tree that Adam & Eve had absolutely no knowledge of what was right or what was wrong.

What, they had a little bit of knowledge? They kinda sort of not really kinda knew good and evil?

Genesis 3:22-24
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Sorry for our error, but you must admit that story makes about as much sense as a jewish Nazi of gypsy descent. I mean, what value does happiness have when it is infinite?

None, if you ask me.

Well, without intending any insult or disrespect, I wouldn't ask you.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Well, without intending any insult or disrespect, I wouldn't ask you.

LOL .. and daithifleming, without intending any insult or disrespect, your ma's a whore!

Ekancone

PDN wrote: »

Well, without intending any insult or disrespect, I wouldn't ask you.

Well, may i ask you then, oh wise one? What value those happiness have when it is infinite?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What, they had a little bit of knowledge?

Genesis 3:22-24
And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

The phrase "good and evil" is a merism, denoting totality (as in "all creatures great and small" or "I worked non-stop, night and day"). The point is, whether you take the passage literally or symbolically, that acting in a morally wrong way opens the door to learning new and hitherto unimagined ways to express that immorality.

The word "of" does not appear in the Hebrew - so it could well be translated as "The Knowledge Tree - both good knowledge and evil knowledge."

An illustration of this (not an argument from analogy, in case anyone is too dense to tell the difference) would be of a young boy in a village who disobeys his parents and runs away to a big city. There he learns many new ways to misbehave, sinking deeper into depravity, but it would be incorrect to say he knew absolutely nothing about right or wrong before he went to the city. He knew enough to disobey his parents.

PDN

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, may i ask you then, oh wise one? What value those happiness have when it is infinite?

What logical reason is there for saying that infinite happiness is valueless? The value of happiness, since you ask me, would appear to be the same whether it is finite or infinite.

Of course happiness is only a small part of God's intended purpose for man. I have a friend with Down's Syndrome who appears to be one of the happiest people I know. I also have a daughter who is extremely intelligent and thoughtful, and as a result can get very downhearted about poverty, global warming etc. I have never once wished that she would have Down's Syndrome so that she might be happier. That suggests to me that happiness is not the be all and end all.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL .. and daithifleming, without intending any insult or disrespect, your ma's a whore!

Well, it's late, he did present a tempting target, and after Arsenal's abject performance this evening I'm pissed off.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The phrase "good and evil" is a merism, denoting totality (as in "all creatures great and small" or "I worked non-stop, night and day").

That is very true, it has been suggested that "good and evil" is a merism, the same way that "heaven and Earth" means everything, the universe. But that actually supports the point, since it is basically a merism meaning all morality, all concepts of right and wrong and everything in between.

PDN wrote: »

The point is, whether you take the passage literally or symbolically, that acting in a morally wrong way opens the door to learning new and hitherto unimagined ways to express that immorality.

That interpretation contradicts your point above about the merism. It isn't "new" immorality, its all immorality.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

That is very true, it has been suggested that "good and evil" is a merism, the same way that "heaven and Earth" means everything, the universe. But that actually supports the point, since it is basically a merism meaning all morality, all concepts of right and wrong.

No, it is a merism meaning all expressions of right and wrong.

That interpretation contradicts your point above about the merism. It isn't "new" immorality, its all immorality.

No, you are confusing concepts with expressions.

Let me give you another example. When I was a very young child I disobeyed my stepmother and looked at the photographs in the women's underwear section of the Mail Order Catalogue (very tame by the standards of today's kids, but I am pretty old and it was a different culture). That got me thinking of all kinds of things that had never entered my head before. It didn't introduce me to immorality, because I had already acted immorally by disobeying my stepmother. There was no "new" immorality, but the old immorality had found a lot of new ways to express itself.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Let me give you another example. When I was a very young child I disobeyed my stepmother and looked at the photographs in the women's underwear section of the Mail Order Catalogue (very tame by the standards of today's kids, but I am pretty old and it was a different culture). That got me thinking of all kinds of things that had never entered my head before. It didn't introduce me to immorality, because I had already acted immorally by disobeying my stepmother. There was no "new" immorality, but the old immorality had found a lot of new ways to express itself.

Ah, I see your point. You are saying that just because the Tree of Knowledge opened Adam and Eve's eyes to a (the) whole range of immorality, that doesn't mean they didn't have some concept of basic immorality before.

Fair enough, that makes sense.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah, I see your point. You are saying that just because the Tree of Knowledge opened Adam and Eve's eyes to a (the) whole range of immorality, that doesn't mean they didn't have some concept of basic immorality before.

Fair enough, that makes sense.

As much sense as you would expect in a story with a talking snake?

Pompey Magnus

I have to say I'm still somewhat confused as to the actual impact eating from the tree had on us if we already had a sense of right and wrong. Are you saying that had the fall of humanity not occured you may still have opened the Mail Order Catalogue catalogue because that was specifically pointed out to you to be wrong but it would have ended there. As you were ignorant of what the pictures represented you would not have developed any immoral thoughts with regard to these.

Immorality after the fall became like knocking down a chain of dominos whilst immorality before the fall was like knocking down one domino at a time. Is this correct?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

I have to say I'm still somewhat confused as to the actual impact eating from the tree had on us if we already had a sense of right and wrong. Are you saying that had the fall of humanity not occured you may still have opened the Mail Order Catalogue catalogue because that was specifically pointed out to you to be wrong but it would have ended there. As you were ignorant of what the pictures represented you would not have developed any immoral thoughts with regard to these.

Immorality after the fall became like knocking down a chain of dominos whilst immorality before the fall was like knocking down one domino at a time. Is this correct?

No,that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the first act of immorality (disobeying the instruction about that one tree) was the first domino that set the chain off.

God created man where the only immoral option was to eat of that tree. Once they took that first action it opened a Pandora's Box of increased opportunity.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

To be quite honest, I'm a bit surprised that anyone is arguing that the stroy has any literal base in fact at all, I would have thought that most catholics would have pawned it off as a figurative tale.

After all, what age did the bible say Adam lived until? and Eve?

Pompey Magnus

Sean_K wrote: »

To be quite honest, I'm a bit surprised that anyone is arguing that the stroy has any literal base in fact at all, I would have thought that most catholics would have pawned it off as a figurative tale.

After all, what age did the bible say Adam lived until? and Eve?

I reckon most Catholics no longer accept the creation myth. The last 3 popes have advocated evolution, the scientific evidence was just too strong to ignore. Today it would mostly be certain Protestant churches and Islam who continue to believe the literal truth of Genesis.

Pompey Magnus

It still seems to me when I read Genesis that God punished humans for the crime of being true to our nature. He created us curious and condems us for it. The cynics among us could justifiably believe that God knew full well that we would eat from the tree when he created us. He created humans to punish us. I cannot see any other explanation for Genesis. He made Adam and Eve inquisitive, left an object lying around which he knew would draw our attention and pointed us in the direction of it, He then conveniently claims to have been surprised that Adam and Eve have eaten from the tree (so much for an all-seeing, all-knowing God), and then punishes us. It has all the qualities of a trap being successfully set by God.

Getting back onto the topic of Miracles I have just read a book with a collection of some fantastic Voltaire essays dealing with free thinking and rationality. One as it happens was on the subject of miracles. He made a number of points including accusing Christians of in effect insulting their God by daring to attribute miracles to him, thereby declaring that they see his Universal workings as being faulted and requiring tweaking every now and then. They are calling God inconsistent, they are saying that he has been unable to accomplish a plan by his creation of the universe and through his eternal laws and so has to admit defeat in achieving these plans at regular intervals by temporarily scrapping his immutable laws and changing things around. To believe in miracles is to disrespect the creation and hence the creator.