The fall of man; Free will

[waitasec]

The theory of relativity is based on the idea that some things do not exist without opposition. Velocity for example - a single object in a void with nothing to compare it to has no velocity. With nothing to compare it to, you cannot tell if it is moving or not. For such an object velocity is not zero – it is not anything. Velocity does not exist except through opposition
Velocity, force, … life does not exist without death… or more descriptively, sentient life – what does it require to be sentient? To be able to think, to have a free will – to be a perfect creation? Thought, free agency – requires choices. Now I suppose you could argue – choose between an apple and an orange – two harmless choices – rather than choose between the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil....good does not exist without evil… good is a relative term... it requires evil in order to define it. Just another extension of the theories of relativity.

what is the opposite of knowledge? Innocence.

what is the opposite of dominion? Freedom.

what is the opposite of FEAR? Innocence and freedom

 

[it's_sam]

Thanks Idea i liked what you said alot. Perhaps their first sin was thinking death wasn't "all that" and nothing to worry about as a consequence or was just a empty threat. Seeing as how they had never experienced it in anything else.

 

[it's_sam]

what is the opposite of knowledge? Innocence.

what is the opposite of dominion? Freedom.

what is the opposite of FEAR? Innocence and freedom

so true.

 

[Hawkins]

According to the Judeo/Christian belief, Adam KNOWINGLY made the EVIL decision by disobeying God. But how? He hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit as of yet, which comes from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So there was no way for him to understand disobedience was evil, was there? He was in a perpetual state of innocence. By innocently partaking of the forbidden fruit his eyes were then opened. The only way this would make sense is if freedom of will is an evil in the eyes of the god in the bible (Adam was told not to eat it, but how can god expect for Adam to understand the implication since he had no prior knowledge disobedience was evil). God also took freedom away from the woman and subjected her to mans rule. Genesis 3:16. Remember, all was good before the opportunity of choice was established.

Apparantly God taught them to obey when He said that they shouldn't eat the fruits.

Moreover, Law is Law. When someone used to live africa tribe goes to New York city and takes whatever he wants as if it is in his tribe, he'll be charged with stealing, no doubt.

 

[Riverwolf]

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, with freedom comes responsibility, respecting other peoples freedom...I cannot infringe on your freedom because that is a violation of the NATURAL LAW, there is no fear in respecting someone else's freedom is there? Unless you are trying to control me...

I have no idea how that follows from what I said.

The god in the bible created hell, eternal damnation, eternal separation as a consequence for not following, believing or having faith in the god of the Judeo/Christian faith...that IS the consequence...

It's not in the Bible.

and because in this faith there is no freedom of will the the christian right the have appointed themselves as a mediator between my right and the model of freedom. They fail to recognize our individual freedom of will. There is nothing more fundamental and more inclusive than that. The religious infringe on my freedom to be able to exercise my will. Look up Blue Laws...

Whatever laws those are, you are completely free to ignore them all you want. Your rights are not being infringed upon, unless you're gay.

Gen3:6 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.

Again I say, the FIRST THING THEY WERE ASHAMED OF WAS THEIR NAKEDNESS...not that the DISOBEYED, INTERESTING, HUH?

Indeed. That is interesting, and so far the only thing you've said worth thinking about.

8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

THEY HID BECAUSE, WHY....?

11 And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

Here blaming both God and Eve in the same sentence.

13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"
The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

SO WHAT DID SHE DO 1ST? HIDE BECAUSE OF HER NAKEDNESS OR BLAME THE SERPENT...

She blamed the serpent. Now, why are you typing in all caps? That doesn't make your statement any more valid.

Did Adam know he was committing an EVIL act by disobeying before he ate the fruit?

He knew he was disobeying God. That should have been enough.

the alternative was, "you will surely die"...there is no freedom in the face of fear, right?

Not an aphorism I've ever heard, and it's one I frankly find silly.

 

[Riverwolf]

I used to follow the christian faith

Which denomination?

Are you telling me that gay marriage is not something the religious right is fighting against with tooth and nail?

Ah, I thought you were talking about the guys trying to get creationism in schools. That one is a futile battle for the fundies.

So I ask again, what do modern politics have to do with an ancient Jewish tale?

It is this underlying notion that has a hold on people and why they vote the way they do.

So? That's them.

I'm not talking about saying it, that is your choice...and that wasn't my point. My point is our founding fathers did not want any religion to rule over other religions...this country was not based on the christian faith

I know that. If someone else doesn't know it, that's their problem.

For now...it is equal rights for ALL not the majority (heterosexuals-couples) but for the minority (same sex couples)too

Those aren't the only majority/minority groups, you know.

Did you read the news today? Congress was debating the bible...

Congress debates biblical stance on immigration – Religion - CNN.com Blogs

Again, so? What does that have to do with an ancient Jewish tale?

 

[Riverwolf]

look it's really simple. this story is a legend written to explain the concept of sin and the reality of death.

How do you know that that's what the original tellers of this story were thinking of?

It looks more like an allegory for adolescence, to me.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, silly. Through eating a magic apple.

More likely a fig, actually. Apples didn't grow in that part of the world.

 

[Riverwolf]

what is the opposite of knowledge? Innocence.

Uh... no it isn't. It's ignorance.

 

[it's_sam]

Uh... no it isn't. It's ignorance.

Innocence is ignorance of difference. Hence not having a "problem" to act on, innocent. Or something to that matter.

 

[Riverwolf]

Innocence is ignorance of difference. Hence not having a "problem" to act on, innocent. Or something to that matter.

Innocence has two primary definitions: having done no wrong, and having a lack of understanding. (Knowledge =/= understanding. They're synonyms, but not the same word.)

A more accurate statement, therefore, may have been, the opposite of understanding is innocence, i.e., naiveté.

 

[it's_sam]

Ahh yes I would agree with that. This understanding would have three parts though. Understanding what it is (part 1), unable to make the connection (part 2), going with it regardless if you understand it (part 3 "nieve").

 

[Riverwolf]

Ahh yes I would agree with that. This understanding would have three parts though.

Why?

Understanding what it is (part 1), unable to make the connection (part 2),

What connection?

going with it regardless if you understand it (part 3 "nieve").

It's spelled "naive."

Going with it even if you understand... what does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[it's_sam]

OK lets take the statement "God exists" your first part "knowledge/understanding" would say i agree. The second part "unable to connect" would say I dont understand. The third part "naive" would not understand but they would say I agree. you just said it was knowledge or naive, im saying there is a third side.

 

[Riverwolf]

OK lets take the statement "God exists" your first part "knowledge/understanding" would say i agree. The second part "unable to connect" would say I dont understand. The third part "naive" would not understand but they would say I agree. you just said it was knowledge or naive, im saying there is a third side.

Oh, okay.

There are usually scales in this matter, yes.

 

[it's_sam]

I kinda havnt stopped thinking about this HAHA but again, your right, someone can be innocent of a act, when they werent ignorant of the consequences. Although innocence is usualy placed when you were ignorant of something "if they learn".

 

[it's_sam]

I guess they work with eachother rather then what i said being the same thing.

 

[Straw Dog]

According to the Judeo/Christian belief, Adam KNOWINGLY made the EVIL decision by disobeying God. But how? He hadn't eaten the forbidden fruit as of yet, which comes from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So there was no way for him to understand disobedience was evil, was there? He was in a perpetual state of innocence. By innocently partaking of the forbidden fruit his eyes were then opened. The only way this would make sense is if freedom of will is an evil in the eyes of the god in the bible (Adam was told not to eat it, but how can god expect for Adam to understand the implication since he had no prior knowledge disobedience was evil). God also took freedom away from the woman and subjected her to mans rule. Genesis 3:16. Remember, all was good before the opportunity of choice was established.

God is unjust. He knew what they were going to do and then he punishes not only them, but the entire human race. Original Sin is a good example of God's unjust ways.

 

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by Riverwolf
Sure, they ate in innocence, but after knowing what was good and bad, they tried to escape responsibility rather than facing it.

my argument isn't about after the fact, my argument is before the act... they made the choice yes but how can this imaginary god hold them accountable for not knowing disobedience was bad? they were in a perpetual state of innocence... this is irreconcilable, faulty, full of contradictions because the men that wrote this legend or passed it along verbally through hundreds of years of tradition were that... imperfect... sexist and prejudice.

 

[waitasec]

Not an aphorism I've ever heard, and it's one I frankly find silly.

Gen 3:17 "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

Yes I find it quite silly too...