2 edits
You have to consider the counter enticement.
You may not want to hear about it but it is important.
There was a triangular situation in the beginning of man's history.
In the middle was man.
On one side of him was God and the life of God.
On the other side of him was God's enemy tempting him to rebel.
Man was in the middle of this triangle.
Man between God and Satan - to choose.
He was good, neutral, and free to choose between two mutually exclusive paths.
You may say "I don't care to hear about the lying serpent." But that is an important part of the triangle. And it cannot be ignored just because you think it is not important.
That's how I see it.
1 edit
@sonship saidFree will cannot be properly exercised if there is ignorance or if someone - the God figure in this story - is deliberately withholding information about the consequences of a decision.
God did what He deemed was necessary short of forcing Adam's will. He respected the free will of Adam to decide what to choose.
Was it not necessary to do whatever was possible to prevent, to date, 6,000 years of human misery?
If God foresaw that consequence, and Adam did not, was it not pertinent to the attempt to convince Adam not to make an uninformed decision that would lead to all that suffering?
@sonship saidAgain with "Satan" and the "counter enticement".
You have to consider the counter enticement.
You may not want to hear about it but it is important.
There was a triangular situation in the beginning of man's history.
In the middle was man.
On one side of him was God and the life of God.
On the other side of him was God's enemy tempting him to rebel.
Man was in the middle of this triangle. ...[text shortened]... gle. And it cannot be ignored just because you think it is not important.
That's how I see it.
The question is NOT about the morality of what "Satan" did in the story.
The question is about the morality of what God did in the story.
Free will cannot be properly exercised if there is ignorance or if someone - the God figure in this story - is deliberately withholding information about the consequences of a decision.
The consequences were told Adam - " . . . for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (v.17b)
Was it not necessary to do whatever was possible to prevent, to date, 6,000 years of human misery?
What we are told is that God warned Adam that in the day he crossed the line and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he would die. That is what he needed to know.
If God foresaw that consequence, and Adam did not, was it not pertinent to the attempt to convince Adam not to make an uninformed decision that would lead to all that suffering?
Adam foresaw the consequences that disobedience would surely be the cause of him to die.
If you have children you may warn them not to do a certain thing.
You may not tell them a thousand other things that will go wrong.
You tell them the mot pertinent thing which they can comprehened.
"Son, do not cheat on your test at school."
"Daughter, do not let yourself be taken advantage of by some boy."
"Son, if you do not get up for school, you will fail your class."
"Daughter, if you lie to your parents, you'll get into trouble, surely."
They have enough information to trust you and obey.
Or they may choose not to trust you and believe somebody else who wants
them to be harmed.
1 edit
@sonship saidThis is the best little set of analogies you have to offer, for real? Are you trying to make a mockery of our conversation?
If you have children you may warn them not to do a certain thing.
You may not tell them a thousand other things that will go wrong.
You tell them the mot pertinent thing which they can comprehened.
"Son, do not cheat on your test at school."
"Daughter, do not let yourself be taken advantage of by some boy."
"Son, if you do not get up for ...[text shortened]... Or they may choose not to trust you and believe somebody else who wants
them to be harmed.
@ponderable saidYes indeed. It's very likely. But wouldn't it be worth it?
The person doing that would of cource vanish in the instant they were succesful, as would their ancestors a few thousand years back I expect.
4 edits
Surely, if anything you have claimed about "fallen man" is true, the consequences were much more than Adam only being given 930 years to live, right?
The consequences were greater.
In life decisions you make, knowing some of the consequences, may result in
greater consequences. You do not fail to make decisions based on that all the
time.
What you are doing is exactly what Adam did in reacting to transgression. When
confronted by God, he blamed God.
"And He [God] said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?
And the man said, The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate." (Gen. 3:11,12)
Ever since some fallen men have been reasoning how to blame God the entrance of sin and death. You are just presenting your reasonings to blame God for man's disobedience and fall.
Below, Divegeester jumps in to do the same thing - reason out how God can be blamed for sin and death entering into our race.
1 edit
Not really, not based on what’s written in the account.
To respect someone’s free will would be demonstrated by respecting their decision to exercise their free will and that is demonstrated by respecting the choice and the outcome.
There is no evidence in genesis to support your claim that God respected Adam’s free will to choose.
You too are offering variations on the "Let's blame God" philosophy .
All you and FMF are doing is what Adam and his wife did in the realization distrust, disobedience, transgression against God was not as benefitial as they thought it would be.
Adam blamed God for giving him the woman causing him to disobey.
The woman blamed the serpent for her disobedience.
Ever since some people continue to try to find ways to blame God for the fall of Adam and Eve.