28 Feb 06
Originally posted by dottewellThere are some here that do, for sure, but not all Christians think this way.
Do Christians (and others of faith) believe that without God there would be no moral truths? And that if god did not exist, then goodness and badness would not exist?
28 Feb 06
Given that Christians believe that all physical matter is dependent upon God, it would be self-contradictory to imagine a world without Him.
And, as moral truths are teaching aids relative to God's restraint of His differing attributes, the morals are shadows of truth and not the truth themselves.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTo save me time, is there any formation of the question that you know I am trying to ask that you would find meaningful?
Given that Christians believe that all physical matter is dependent upon God, it would be self-contradictory to imagine a world without Him.
And, as moral truths are teaching aids relative to God's restraint of His differing attributes, the morals are shadows of truth and not the truth themselves.
e.g.
If God had not made moral laws at the time of creation, would there still be moral truths?
Could God decide to make murder right?
etc.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by dottewellSorry, wasn't trying to be obtuse. It's just a very difficult question to answer, because the building demands a base. Nonetheless...
To save me time, is there any formation of the question that you know I am trying to ask that you would find meaningful?
e.g.
If God had not made moral laws at the time of creation, would there still be moral truths?
Could God decide to make murder right?
etc.
Prior to the Fall, there existed no 'right and wrong,' per se. The man and the woman were naked (totally verboten today, outside of porn films, strip bars and public showers), and the only restriction was the fruit of a single tree. All other trees were fair game.
The moral truths given by God were a shadow of His righteousness. Had He not given them, our world would be the quintessential example of survival of the fittest.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf this be true then how were Adam and Eve supposed to understand the 'wrongness' of eating from the tree?
Sorry, wasn't trying to be obtuse. It's just a very difficult question to answer, because the building demands a base. Nonetheless...
Prior to the Fall, there existed no 'right and wrong,' per se. The man and the woman were naked (totally verboten today, outside of porn films, strip bars and public showers), and the only restriction was the fruit of ...[text shortened]... He not given them, our world would be the quintessential example of survival of the fittest.
TheSkipper
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperThus, the restriction. They were warned that the day they eat of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "Dying, you will die." They were told they would die spiritually, and then, eventually, physically. Obviously in our vaulted positions of hindsight, we are beginning to see the 'wrongness' for what it was/is.
If this be true then how were Adam and Eve supposed to understand the 'wrongness' of eating from the tree?
TheSkipper
If we truly wish to see the offence for what it represents, however, we need look no further than the judgment which occured on the cross.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHyeah yeah I get that. My point is God can make all the restrictions he wants for people that do not understand the difference between right and wrong but they will never mean anything. When God told Adam "Do not eat..." it meant nothing to Adam because he could not understand the concept that disobeying anybody, even God, is wrong.
Thus, the restriction. They were warned that the day they eat of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "Dying, you will die." They were told they would die spiritually, and then, eventually, physically. Obviously in our vaulted positions of hindsight, we are beginning to see the 'wrongness' for what it was/is.
If we truly wish to s ...[text shortened]... t represents, however, we need look no further than the judgment which occured on the cross.
Further they were not told they would die spiritually and eventually physically they were simply told "You will surely die...". What you describe is what happened not what they were told.
TheSkipper
28 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipper"Dying, you will die," is the closer approximation of the original language.
yeah yeah I get that. My point is God can make all the restrictions he wants for people that do not understand the difference between right and wrong but they will never mean anything. When God told Adam "Do not eat..." it meant nothing to Adam because he could not understand the concept that disobeying anybody, even God, is wrong.
Further they were l surely die...". What you describe is what happened not what they were told.
TheSkipper
The issue, to them, was cyrstal clear. Did they understand the absolute ramifications of their act? Did they understand the payment it would require of God Himself? They understood enough, as do we.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBH????
"Dying, you will die," is the closer approximation of the original language.
The issue, to them, was cyrstal clear. Did they understand the absolute ramifications of their act? Did they understand the payment it would require of God Himself? They understood enough, as do we.
I'm glad you can be so sure of these things...must be nice.
Sadly, I cannot be so sure. The Bible makes no mention of what they did or did not understand and I find it interesting that you seem to think you know anyway.
Faith, again, I guess.
TheSkipper
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperIt seems you are projecting onto them an ignorance which is unsupported. Every day, God walked with them in the cool of the day, teaching them about Him, directly and indirectly.
????
I'm glad you can be so sure of these things...must be nice.
Sadly, I cannot be so sure. The Bible makes no mention of what they did or did not understand and I find it interesting that you seem to think you know anyway.
Faith, again, I guess.
TheSkipper
Did they know what living meant? Did they know what dying meant?
The account doesn't indicate that they heard the message but did not understand what it meant. I does say, they heard the message, and while the woman was tricked into her disobedience, the man freely chose.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe text clearly states that neither one of them could possibly know right from wrong!
It seems you are projecting onto them an ignorance which is unsupported. Every day, God walked with them in the cool of the day, teaching them about Him, directly and indirectly.
Did they know what living meant? Did they know what dying meant?
The account doesn't indicate that they heard the message but did not understand what it meant. I does say ...[text shortened]... heard the message, and while the woman was tricked into her disobedience, the man freely chose.
The text does not indicate anything about what they understood with regards to "the message" and I suggest that baring some new revelation the honest reader must assume they, at least, did not know the difference between right and wrong. Therefore disobedience to Adam and Eve has no moral difference from obedience.
TheSkipper
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperBeg to differ. This wasn't a moral issue, as it was clear the fruit was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was an obedience issue. Would they trust that God would supply everything they needed in all aspects, or would they trust something other than God?
The text clearly states that neither one of them could possibly know right from wrong!
The text does not indicate anything about what they understood with regards to "the message" and I suggest that baring some new revelation the honest reader must assume they, at least, did not know the difference between right and wrong. Therefore disobedience to Adam and Eve has no moral difference from obedience.
TheSkipper
If 'dying' wasn't perspicuous to them, God may as well have said 'snorkeling,' or any other nonsensical (to them) word.