I found this interesting, esp. in view of the current Administration: Why the Church Keeps Falling for Bad Information (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2018/08/10/why-the-church-keeps-falling-for-bad-information/)
QuoteEvangelicals value trust and obedience above knowledge, which means that epistemology will always be little more than background noise to the things that really matter to them. Above all, this subculture celebrates the ability to believe things even in the face of contradictory information.
Imagine for a moment how easily that could be misused by selfish opportunists who are motivated to twist the truth for their own ends. A community that applauds trust above all other traits would be ripe for manipulation by those who don't really deserve it. Evangelicals are taught to see themselves as sheep whose most important skill is the ability to follow direction. Just imagine how useful that would be in the wrong hands.
Quote from: Sandra Craft on August 19, 2018, 10:05:43 AM
I found this interesting, esp. in view of the current Administration: Why the Church Keeps Falling for Bad Information (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessindixie/2018/08/10/why-the-church-keeps-falling-for-bad-information/)
QuoteEvangelicals value trust and obedience above knowledge, which means that epistemology will always be little more than background noise to the things that really matter to them. Above all, this subculture celebrates the ability to believe things even in the face of contradictory information.
Imagine for a moment how easily that could be misused by selfish opportunists who are motivated to twist the truth for their own ends. A community that applauds trust above all other traits would be ripe for manipulation by those who don't really deserve it. Evangelicals are taught to see themselves as sheep whose most important skill is the ability to follow direction. Just imagine how useful that would be in the wrong hands.
I would say, "What a sad bunch," were it not that these saddoes are so powerful in the nation (currently) with the most fire-power on this poor planet. So there is st least as much concern as sadness.
That's a very good piece; thank you for posting it, Sandy. The idea that it is evil to choose knowledge over obedience, which is an explicit message in Christianity, was definitely a part of what destroyed my faith as a child.
Most interesting article. For my money it exposes just what a poison a certain brand of religiosity can be for a society. Scary.
Quote from: Bluenose on August 19, 2018, 12:08:54 PM
Most interesting article. For my money it exposes just what a poison a certain brand of religiosity can be for a society. Scary.
I remember in my post-Xtian/pre-atheist searching days, I ran across the ideas of "some things have to be believed to be seen" and "if you truly believe it, does it matter whether it's a fact?" in every group I studied. It seemed particularly prevalent among Pagans, to whom I was otherwise strongly drawn.
I understand that such an attitude was supposed to represent a higher spiritual consciousness, or a state of greater psychological clarity, and I tried to wrap my mind around it -- I really did try very hard as both a struggling Xtian and a post-Xtian -- but I could never manage to see it as anything more than a problem one should talk to a psychiatrist about.
I wonder if there's any kind of religiosity that does not require at least some faith in order to be embraced? I used to think maybe Buddhism, but now I think the absence of "seeing by believing" thinking that used to seem a part of it may be just a result of cherry-picking on the part of some practitioners.
And I have some highly liberal Xtian friends who couldn't be more broad- or scientific-minded, but still have blind spots created in their thinking by assumptions made automatically because of their faith. The difference between their assumptions and a conservative fundie's (and it is a big one) is that the things liberal Xtians make assumptions about are generally matters that aren't on a collision course with anyone else's civil rights. Most recent experience was the difference between my and a liberal Xtian friend's take on Rahab from the wall of Jericho story.
Quotethe very first story in the Bible tells of a garden in which the first humans incorrectly chose knowledge over obedience.
Nah. The same knowledge would have come if they had been obedient, and Adam probably wasn't after knowledge at all.
Quote from: John V on November 13, 2018, 06:03:19 PM
Quotethe very first story in the Bible tells of a garden in which the first humans incorrectly chose knowledge over obedience.
Nah. The same knowledge would have come if they had been obedient, and Adam probably wasn't after knowledge at all.
Hello,
John V. Good to see a new member diving into discussions. :)
You've made an interesting assertion. Can you back it up with references from the Bible? How would knowledge have come if they had been obedient? What do you think Adam was really after? What about Eve's motivations?
Drones have never been known for their mental acuity.(https://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Whistle.png)
Quote from: Recusant on November 14, 2018, 08:37:06 PM
You've made an interesting assertion. Can you back it up with references from the Bible? How would knowledge have come if they had been obedient?
The same way as it came through disobedience. Note that they did evil, yet gained knowledge of both good and evil. Logically, if they had done good by rejecting the snake, they likewise would have gained knowledge of both good and evil.
Consider the godly angels. There's no indication that they've ever sinned, yet they do apparently understand good and evil.
QuoteWhat do you think Adam was really after? What about Eve's motivations?
We're told Eve's reasoning:
Gen 3
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.
So, yes, Eve wanted knowledge.
But, Adam wasn't deceived by the snake's claims:
1 Tim 2
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
We're not told what Adam's reasoning was. I would guess that he couldn't bear the thought of being without Eve.
As an aside, since Adam wasn't deceived, the greater blame is put on him:
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: Recusant on November 14, 2018, 08:37:06 PM
You've made an interesting assertion. Can you back it up with references from the Bible? How would knowledge have come if they had been obedient?
The same way as it came through disobedience. Note that they did evil, yet gained knowledge of both good and evil. Logically, if they had done good by rejecting the snake, they likewise would have gained knowledge of both good and evil.
Consider the godly angels. There's no indication that they've ever sinned, yet they do apparently understand good and evil.
Below you present biblical quotations to support your position, but here you rely on logic. This is a bit puzzling, because this was the one point regarding which I specifically requested a biblical basis, while for the questions below I was expressing curiosity regarding your understanding of motivations.
As for your logic: in Christian mythology, the angels are a completely different order of being than humans, and their relationship to the Christian god is also different. I don't agree that it is useful to draw a direct parallel between their apparently innate knowledge of good and evil and human beings' innocence of such knowledge, which was only dispelled by their eating the fruit.
In addition, we don't know the time frame of the residence of Adam and Eve in the garden. Your logic depends on them having been there only briefly, but it could just as well be that they were there for several years. If that were the case then they would have had plenty of time to gain knowledge of good and evil through their obedience, yet that did not happen.
What was the "evil" that they did? It was disobeying a command from YHVH. He had commanded that they should not eat the fruit of the tree, thereby gaining knowledge. They were given a choice: Obey YHVH or gain knowledge (an evil act, in the mythology). No other options are given through which they might gain knowledge. I don't think your speculative attempt to deny that dichotomy succeeds. You might have a better case if you could cite a biblical reference to support it, but I don't think one exists.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 01:56:02 PMQuoteWhat do you think Adam was really after? What about Eve's motivations?
We're told Eve's reasoning:
Gen 3
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.
So, yes, Eve wanted knowledge.
But, Adam wasn't deceived by the snake's claims:
1 Tim 2
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
We're not told what Adam's reasoning was. I would guess that he couldn't bear the thought of being without Eve.
As an aside, since Adam wasn't deceived, the greater blame is put on him:
Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
I don't think greater blame is put on Adam. To me it seems that the couple suffered equal opprobrium from YHVH.
Eve claims that she was deceived, yet upon eating the fruit they did in fact gain knowledge of good and evil. Nor would the couple have surely died merely because they ate the fruit--there is no mention in the Bible of any physical harm coming to them from eating it. Rather, YHVH decided that they must die because of their disobedience, and made it so.
Quote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PM
Below you present biblical quotations to support your position, but here you rely on logic. This is a bit puzzling, because this was the one point regarding which I specifically requested a biblical basis, while for the questions below I was expressing curiosity regarding your understanding of motivations.
That part was based more on logic than direct Scriptural references. I don't believe I claimed otherwise.
QuoteAs for your logic: in Christian mythology, the angels are a completely different order of being than humans, and their relationship to the Christian god is also different.
Completely? Not at all. While there are differences, there are similarities as well. As to this discussion, they're more similar than different. Both are capable of making moral decisions. Those moral decisions have consequences for both.
QuoteI don't agree that it is useful to draw a direct parallel between their apparently innate knowledge of good and evil and human beings' innocence of such knowledge, which was only dispelled by their eating the fruit.
I disagree that their knowledge of good and evil is apparently innate. Isaiah 14:12-14 is generally applied to Satan, an angelic being. It shows him going from either a state of either naivete or righteousness, to a state of unrighteousness, based on his choices. That's like A&E, except his temptation was internal. Further, I interpret Rev 12:3-4 as indicating that Satan tempted the other angels, and a third of them followed him (note that I think this happened previous to the events in Revelation). This is, again, like A&E.
QuoteIn addition, we don't know the time frame of the residence of Adam and Eve in the garden. Your logic depends on them having been there only briefly, but it could just as well be that they were there for several years. If that were the case then they would have had plenty of time to gain knowledge of good and evil through their obedience, yet that did not happen.
My logic depends on them not really contemplating the prohibition until Satan tempted them.
QuoteWhat was the "evil" that they did? It was disobeying a command from YHVH. He had commanded that they should not eat the fruit of the tree, thereby gaining knowledge. They were given a choice: Obey YHVH or gain knowledge (an evil act, in the mythology). No other options are given through which they might gain knowledge.
It wouldn't be much of a test of faith if they were told they'd get the same knowledge through obedience.
Quote
I don't think greater blame is put on Adam. To me it seems that the couple suffered equal opprobrium from YHVH.
OK. That it's said that sin entered the world through Adam, even though he was second to eat, seems to me like it's putting greater blame on him.
I agree with John that A&E would have eventually gotten knowledge in the Genesis account. First, nothing actually says that if they obeyed YHWH they would not get knowledge. Just that their first step was to obey YHWH before striking out on their own. Kinda like a child needs to obey mom that the stove is hot so don't touch it, instead of learning by touching it.
Second, they were made in the image of God. As they grow in mental/moral maturity, knowledge is a given. God is presented as either omniscient or at least knowing a lot, so his creations in his image are destined for the same thing.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 07:05:29 PM
Quote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PM
Below you present biblical quotations to support your position, but here you rely on logic. This is a bit puzzling, because this was the one point regarding which I specifically requested a biblical basis, while for the questions below I was expressing curiosity regarding your understanding of motivations.
That part was based more on logic than direct Scriptural references. I don't believe I claimed otherwise.
Indeed you didn't make any claim for the basis of your assertion, which is why I asked. The reason I asked for a biblical grounding is because I don't think that your assertion that humans would have gained the same knowledge by obedience as they did by disobeying YHVH can be justified by anything found in the Bible. While I appreciate your describing the basis for your assertion, apparently you're unable to provide anything from the Bible to support it.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 07:05:29 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PMAs for your logic: in Christian mythology, the angels are a completely different order of being than humans, and their relationship to the Christian god is also different.
Completely? Not at all. While there are differences, there are similarities as well. As to this discussion, they're more similar than different. Both are capable of making moral decisions. Those moral decisions have consequences for both.
In the Bible the angels' essential character is defined by their knowledge of good and evil (2 Samuel 14:17 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+14%3A17&version=NIV)). They were created by YHVH with this knowledge, while humans clearly were not. One might question whether a being without knowledge of good and evil is truly capable of making moral decisions.
I suppose that if one defines "good" as "unquestioning obedience to YHVH" that works. This goes back to the point of the article--that obedience to the Christian god is of much higher value to Christians than knowledge.
However, even assuming that "obedience = good" is the case, the difference between angels and humans in regard to knowledge of good and evil means that whatever similarities between the two orders of being you wish to claim cannot justify your attempt to draw a parallel between the "good" angels and human beings. Again: In this mythology, angels by their nature have knowledge of good and evil while humans do not.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 07:05:29 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PMI don't agree that it is useful to draw a direct parallel between their apparently innate knowledge of good and evil and human beings' innocence of such knowledge, which was only dispelled by their eating the fruit.
I disagree that their knowledge of good and evil is apparently innate. Isaiah 14:12-14 is generally applied to Satan, an angelic being. It shows him going from either a state of either naivete or righteousness, to a state of unrighteousness, based on his choices. That's like A&E, except his temptation was internal. Further, I interpret Rev 12:3-4 as indicating that Satan tempted the other angels, and a third of them followed him (note that I think this happened previous to the events in Revelation). This is, again, like A&E.
The Isaiah quote is from a "proverb" or "taunt" specifically addressed to the king of Babylon. Context does not support interpreting it as referring to Satan, despite Christians asserting such, including translating a particular word
helel/"shining one" as "Lucifer" while a plain reading of the word doesn't justify it. ("Lucifer" means "light bringing," not "shining one.") I prefer to stick to the clear reading of the mythology rather than depending on later "spiritual revelation" which has been layered onto it.
Continuing with the plain text, in Genesis 3 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=NIV) there is no indication that Eve "tempted" Adam. She merely gave some of the fruit to Adam, and he ate it. The depiction of Eve as a temptress of Adam is a later development, unjustified by the actual story as told in the Bible. So again, I think your attempted parallel fails.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 07:05:29 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PMIn addition, we don't know the time frame of the residence of Adam and Eve in the garden. Your logic depends on them having been there only briefly, but it could just as well be that they were there for several years. If that were the case then they would have had plenty of time to gain knowledge of good and evil through their obedience, yet that did not happen.
My logic depends on them not really contemplating the prohibition until Satan tempted them.
How then are they to gain knowledge of good and evil through obedience to YHVH? You appear to be assuming that they didn't contemplate the prohibition, but there's nothing in the Bible to support that assumption. They could just as easily have been contemplating it and when the serpent talked to Eve, she decided that "eat the fruit" had won the day, and Adam agreed with her.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 07:05:29 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PMWhat was the "evil" that they did? It was disobeying a command from YHVH. He had commanded that they should not eat the fruit of the tree, thereby gaining knowledge. They were given a choice: Obey YHVH or gain knowledge (an evil act, in the mythology). No other options are given through which they might gain knowledge.
It wouldn't be much of a test of faith if they were told they'd get the same knowledge through obedience.
What biblical basis do you have for describing the prohibition as a "test of faith"? An all-knowing god has no need of such tests--he already knows what is in the hearts of his creations. Adam and Eve were happy in the garden; they didn't need a test of faith either.
Quote from: John V on November 15, 2018, 07:05:29 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 05:54:32 PMI don't think greater blame is put on Adam. To me it seems that the couple suffered equal opprobrium from YHVH.
OK. That it's said that sin entered the world through Adam, even though he was second to eat, seems to me like it's putting greater blame on him.
Or it could be that the blame falling on Adam is merely a manifestation of the paternalistic culture of the Hebrews. To them, women are essentially chattel, therefore any credit or blame must accrue to the "head of the household."
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2018, 09:25:12 PM
I agree with John that A&E would have eventually gotten knowledge in the Genesis account. First, nothing actually says that if they obeyed YHWH they would not get knowledge. Just that their first step was to obey YHWH before striking out on their own. Kinda like a child needs to obey mom that the stove is hot so don't touch it, instead of learning by touching it.
When would they have ever "struck out on their own"? They were in the garden which supplied all of their needs (except knowledge of good and evil, which arguably isn't a need in the context of the garden). As long as they had access to the tree of life they were apparently immortal, and is there no indication in the Bible that they ever would have had children if they had not been expelled from the garden. It's only once they became "aware of their nakedness" and thereafter were out in the world that they had children.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 15, 2018, 09:25:12 PMSecond, they were made in the image of God. As they grow in mental/moral maturity, knowledge is a given. God is presented as either omniscient or at least knowing a lot, so his creations in his image are destined for the same thing.
The image of Mona Lisa doesn't breath, and never will breath: The image is not the original, and clearly when Adam and Eve were created, they did not have the knowledge of good and evil that YHVH and his angels had. The only way they gained it is by disobeying him. The idea that they would have eventually gained that knowledge otherwise is nothing but conjecture.
Quote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 09:50:41 PM
Indeed you didn't make any claim for the basis of your assertion, which is why I asked. The reason I asked for a biblical grounding is because I don't think that your assertion that humans would have gained the same knowledge by obedience as they did by disobeying YHVH can be justified by anything found in the Bible. While I appreciate your describing the basis for your assertion, apparently you're unable to provide anything from the Bible to support it.
Unnecessarily argumentative. Thanks anyway.
Quote from: Recusant on November 15, 2018, 10:03:34 PM
The image of Mona Lisa doesn't breath, and never will breath: The image is not the original, and clearly when Adam and Eve were created, they did not have the knowledge of good and evil that YHVH and his angels had. The only way they gained it is by disobeying him. The idea that they would have eventually gained that knowledge otherwise is nothing but conjecture.
Well, of course, everything we are discussing is conjecture. We are discussing what would have happened had something else not happened. That is speculation personified. But Adam and Eve were already gaining knowledge through their relationship with YHWH. They learned to hear his voice, to understand his commands, to communicate with him. My point is simply that in the story they were supposed to gain knowledge through this relationship rather than seeking it on their own. The fact that they were able to think and communicate indicates that ultimately they were capable of knowledge. The difference was the context - instead of being out of relationship with God they were supposed to be in that relationship. That is where their primary source of knowledge was to be located.
I realize that the image is not the original, and Man was never going to be God. But unlike the Mona Lisa in the painting, A&E could communicate with God. A painting can't communicate with its subject. That's a big difference.
The couple were created as full grown adults who had no knowledge of good and evil. The closest approximation we have of this in real life is people exhibiting severe antisocial personality disorder, commonly called psychopaths. From what I've read, talking therapy is an ineffective treatment of such individuals, but I suppose talking therapy from an all-powerful god would be a different story. :)
In the Bible there are no indications that YHVH taught Adam and Eve anything beyond the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It appears they were both capable of speech when they were created.
Even after they were expelled from the garden people still had a relationship with YHVH--he continued to speak directly to them, as seen in Genesis 4.
There were lots of reasons that I stopped believing, but one of the triggers was a discussion with one of the church leaders when I was telling him about a science news story and he said to me that thinking about such things was not helpful to faith and was even dangerous; providing temptation as they 'tickled the intellect'.The phrase is etched in my brain for ever. It's one of the few occasions on which I was rendered speechless.
Quote from: Essie Mae on November 16, 2018, 10:40:17 PM
There were lots of reasons that I stopped believing, but one of the triggers was a discussion with one of the church leaders when I was telling him about a science news story and he said to me that thinking about such things was not helpful to faith and was even dangerous; providing temptation as they 'tickled the intellect'.The phrase is etched in my brain for ever. It's one of the few occasions on which I was rendered speechless.
:rofl: What a great anecdote.
I'd say that a ticklish intellect is a joy forever.
Quote from: Recusant on November 16, 2018, 10:45:09 PM
Quote from: Essie Mae on November 16, 2018, 10:40:17 PM
There were lots of reasons that I stopped believing, but one of the triggers was a discussion with one of the church leaders when I was telling him about a science news story and he said to me that thinking about such things was not helpful to faith and was even dangerous; providing temptation as they 'tickled the intellect'.The phrase is etched in my brain for ever. It's one of the few occasions on which I was rendered speechless.
:rofl: What a great anecdote.
I'd say that a ticklish intellect is a joy forever.
Oh it so is 😀
It is probably not a good idea to read more into the A&E story than is there. It is a story, not literal history, and was probably meant to make a few morals or points.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
It is probably not a good idea to read more into the A&E story than is there. It is a story, not literal history, and was probably meant to make a few morals or points.
So there is no original sin?
Quote from: Tank on November 21, 2018, 07:50:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
It is probably not a good idea to read more into the A&E story than is there. It is a story, not literal history, and was probably meant to make a few morals or points.
So there is no original sin?
I don't see it like the standard Christian doctrine. For me the story is a metaphor for each individual, as we lose our innocence and become self-aware. The challenge is to re-establish the experience of God in a new setting. Increase of knowledge is part of the deal, just as we always do as we grow. The "garden" was only a stage - we were never intended to stay in our innocence. But that's just my spin on it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2018, 04:58:11 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 21, 2018, 07:50:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
It is probably not a good idea to read more into the A&E story than is there. It is a story, not literal history, and was probably meant to make a few morals or points.
So there is no original sin?
I don't see it like the standard Christian doctrine. For me the story is a metaphor for each individual, as we lose our innocence and become self-aware. The challenge is to re-establish the experience of God in a new setting. Increase of knowledge is part of the deal, just as we always do as we grow. The "garden" was only a stage - we were never intended to stay in our innocence. But that's just my spin on it.
Like a parable of the kids growing up and leaving home under some acrimony because the things they've learned have made them different from their parents?
Quote from: Sandra Craft on November 21, 2018, 08:00:52 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 21, 2018, 04:58:11 PM
Quote from: Tank on November 21, 2018, 07:50:08 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on November 20, 2018, 10:38:01 PM
It is probably not a good idea to read more into the A&E story than is there. It is a story, not literal history, and was probably meant to make a few morals or points.
So there is no original sin?
I don't see it like the standard Christian doctrine. For me the story is a metaphor for each individual, as we lose our innocence and become self-aware. The challenge is to re-establish the experience of God in a new setting. Increase of knowledge is part of the deal, just as we always do as we grow. The "garden" was only a stage - we were never intended to stay in our innocence. But that's just my spin on it.
Like a parable of the kids growing up and leaving home under some acrimony because the things they've learned have made them different from their parents?
Perhaps. It's pretty clear from the Genesis story that we became something different from God. Once self-awareness is thrown into the mix, it's hard to predict the outcome. Knowledge and experience are gained and the trajectory of development becomes very complex.