Why death

Originally posted by frogstomp
the thing is : it's not a rational act to punish someone for an act they had no idea i was wrong . And even less rational to punish you for something done many generations ago , or an act done by anyone else for that matter.

One rational for punishing someone when they do something wrong although they did not know was wrong is to teach them and others that they should not do that thing, and that there is a price to pay for doing it. So the lack of knowledge of right and wrong does no preclude punishment.

However, the degree of fault goes up when one has the knowledge of right and wrong. Ignorance of the law does not excuse the violation, it will lighten the punishment.

Originally posted by Coletti
One rational for punishing someone when they do something wrong although they did not know was wrong is to teach them and others that they should not do that thing, and that there is a price to pay for doing it. So the lack of knowledge of right and wrong does no preclude punishment.

However, the degree of fault goes up when one has the knowledge of righ ...[text shortened]... and wrong. Ignorance of the law does not excuse the violation, it will lighten the punishment.

Punishing someone for doing something they did not know was wrong is fundamentally unjust, cruel and contrary to the Western legal tradition. You do not punish a child just to show them they shouldn't do something, you instruct them that they should not do it in the future and why. You do not punsish someone just to show them there is a "price to pay" for doing something wrong; this is simple cruelty. You are a truly warped person, Coletti.

Originally posted by Coletti
One rational for punishing someone when they do something wrong although they did not know was wrong is to teach them and others that they should not do that thing, and that there is a price to pay for doing it. So the lack of knowledge of ...[text shortened]... law does not excuse the violation, it will lighten the punishment.

lighten the punishment by only giving the death penalty ?
and that's not a rational anyway since it was a one-time only thing.
what you should ask is why were the infernal tree and the talking serpent there in the first place?

Not knowing right from wrong is actually considered not resposible for your actions. Mens Ray is the key to wrongness.

Originally posted by LemonJello
this is one of those questions i could dwell on for hours and still not know what i really think about it.

i think it's a true statement to say that man has consistently been upping his life expectancy (through advances in medicine and treatment, for example). in theory, i don't see any reason why death must be a necessity, except for (as Scribs p ...[text shortened]... hat the heck would you do if you lived on earth forever, anyhow? how boring would that get?

I think living forever would be cool...as long as it wasn't a miserable life. If I had the option to kill myself I would LOVE to live forever.

Originally posted by frogstomp
the thing is : it's not a rational act to punish someone for an act they had no idea i was wrong . And even less rational to punish you for something done many generations ago , or an act done by anyone else for that matter.

Maybe if we stop calling it a punishment it will make more sense. We are told that God told them "If you eat from this tree, you will surely die". We don't know, but maybe He also told them 'if you step off this cliff it will surely hurt', and 'Adam, if you don't call Eve when you're gonna be late, you will surely sleep on the couch'!

But the consequence of their decision to eat the fruit was foretold to them both! In fact, the consequence wasn't a threat like "I'm warning you, I'll kill you if you do so and so..", but a teaching like; "Eating from these trees is nutritious and delightful, but eating from this tree will lead to your death!'

Nothing irrational or unfair about it! If your not planning to continually find fault with the story as it is laid out in Genesis (and referred to in other places, including by Jesus), and will allow some new insights to be considered rationally, then maybe you will see the possibilities you never saw before.

As far as your second point about the 'punishment' going on through the generations, I just thought of something. Perhaps when God said to them, "you will surely die", they fully understood that the you was plural and all inclusive, meaning, 'all of you people types from here on out'. It's clear that that is what God meant, so I'm sure He would have made Himself clear to them. Think consequences, instead of punishment and it seems to make more sense.

And if we look around we see children suffering (and celebrating) under the decisions of their parents all the time. When a Dad molests his child, it is the child who suffers the rest of its life. When a Mom is thrown in jail for embezzlement, her children suffer the loss of care and the shame attached. When a couple gamble away their children's inheritance the loss might be felt for generations. Small scale stuff, but the principle is valid and recognizable.

What do you think?

Originally posted by chinking58
I don't know how circular it is, but I'm not afraid to admit the obvious. I think certain foundational assumptions are required befor any discussion can proceed. If we don't agree that people have something over animals then we wont ever agree on much beyond that (what I call obvious) point.

As far as my view of the relative status, I'll lay it ...[text shortened]... And since animals and plants don't have that huge benefit, they simply live 'under' us.

If we don't agree that people have something over animals then we wont ever agree on much beyond that (what I call obvious) point.

I am not sure whether or not we can find common ground here. It's clear that if you define an appropriate scale, then you can say "humans are over other animals relative to this scale". For example, humans are over animals relative to the scale that says the more bicycles the species rides, the 'higher' it is.'

However in the absence of a previously defined scale, I cannot say that animals have some sort of inherent 'underness' compared to humans. It's nonsense to talk about over and under unless there's some previously defined scale which you are referring to.

I recognize that there exists in the world bodies, souls and spirits.

All right. I'll agree that bodies exist without further discussion.

I know I have a soul, and I define that as the compilation of mind, emotions and will.

Interesting. I've heard soul and spirit defined opposite to how you're defining them. I've seen spirit equated with mind, and soul equated with some sort of 'essence' of a person, which is eternal.

I agree you have a mind, emotions, and will; therefore by definition I agree you have a soul and that souls exist. However I am using your strict definition so don't start reading into this statement claims about afterlife and gods and stuff.

The spirit is where you and I diverge. Your subjective sense about something does not mean that something exists. This is not obvious; you make claims and then say you don't need to defend those claims because they are 'obvious'. They may seem obvious to you, but maybe that's because you were brought up in such a way that you are not currently capable of critically examining these claims you think are obviously true.

So if spirits exist as you (poorly) define them, and the scale in question is that those with spirits are over those without, and humans have spirits and animals do not, then yes, animals are below us. However your claim about the obvious existence of spirits as you define them is totally unsupported and in no way obvious. I say it's obvious you and I have a mind and a body, but it's not obvious that spirits exist.

Originally posted by chinking58
Maybe if we stop calling it a punishment it will make more sense. We are told that God told them "If you eat from this tree, you will surely die". We don't know, but maybe He also told them 'if you step off this cliff it will surely hurt', and 'Adam, if you don't call Eve when you're gonna be late, you will surely sleep on the couch'!

But th ...[text shortened]... erations. Small scale stuff, but the principle is valid and recognizable.

What do you think?

Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. As a consequence, God prevented them from eating the other fruit, the fruit of life. God didn't simply inform them; he punished them by actively preventing them from doing something they wanted to do. It's not that the fruit of knowledge was poisoned, but that God denied Adam and Eve the medicine that would save their lives because they disobeyed him.

Regardless of how God phrased things or what Adam and Eve knew, I am supposedly suffering the consequences of what Adam and Eve did; and those consequences were actively imposed by God as a punishment. So God actively denies me the medicine I need to save my life because of what Adam and Eve did. This is unjust.

You are right that children often suffer because of their parents' choices, but that's just the way the world is. If I had the power to stop this I would. That's the right thing to do. God supposedly has this power, yet he won't stop it. He's not just.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]If we don't agree that people have something over animals then we wont ever agree on much beyond that (what I call obvious) point.

I am not sure whether or not we can find common ground here. It's clear that if you define an appropriate scale, then you can say "humans are over other animals relative to this scale". For example, humans ...[text shortened]... I say it's obvious you and I have a mind and a body, but it's not obvious that spirits exist.[/b]

Ok