The tree of knowledge

[bahman]

The tree of knowledge...

Check Genesis. There's no such thing as "the tree of knowledge." It's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil".

Oh yeah, I know that. Thanks for the correction anyway. By the way, what do you think of the situation (a sinful situation that making sin is just a matter of time) that Adam was in?

[Immanuel Can]

By the way, what do you think of the situation (a sinful situation that making sin is just a matter of time) that Adam was in?

Well, it's not at all clear that it was "just a matter of time" at all. But let's suppose it was...that Adam was going to fall. But let's back the truck up one step: ask yourself, even if it was not inevitable that Adam would choose to disobey, why would God put an item in the Garden that made disobedience even possible? I mean, isn't that really your question?

[DPMartin]

The tree of knowledge is a symbol of a situation that God purposefully put Adam in a sinful situation and wait until sin happens. So He could have His grand design plan.

no, absolutely not

the Life that God gave Adam (Luk 3:38 "Adam, which was the son of God.") which included God's image and likeness, requires belief and trust (faith) in the Lord God's Word to live it. so no you're incorrect. the tree of Life was also available to A&E before the trouble began.

he believed and or trusted her, and she believed and or trust in the words of the serpent.

[bahman]

The tree of knowledge is a symbol of a situation that God purposefully put Adam in a sinful situation and wait until sin happens. So He could have His grand design plan.

no, absolutely not

the Life that God gave Adam (Luk 3:38 "Adam, which was the son of God.") which included God's image and likeness, requires belief and trust (faith) in the Lord God's Word to live it. so no you're incorrect. the tree of Life was also available to A&E before the trouble began.

he believed and or trusted her, and she believed and or trust in the words of the serpent.

So Serpent sinned first for lying to Eve? They were fooled by Serpent.

[bahman]

By the way, what do you think of the situation (a sinful situation that making sin is just a matter of time) that Adam was in?

Well, it's not at all clear that it was "just a matter of time" at all. But let's suppose it was...that Adam was going to fall. But let's back the truck up one step: ask yourself, even if it was not inevitable that Adam would choose to disobey, why would God put an item in the Garden that made disobedience even possible? I mean, isn't that really your question?

Yes, that is another good question.

[Immanuel Can]

By the way, what do you think of the situation (a sinful situation that making sin is just a matter of time) that Adam was in?

Well, it's not at all clear that it was "just a matter of time" at all. But let's suppose it was...that Adam was going to fall. But let's back the truck up one step: ask yourself, even if it was not inevitable that Adam would choose to disobey, why would God put an item in the Garden that made disobedience even possible? I mean, isn't that really your question?

Yes, that is another good question.

Well, think of it this way: what is the minimum prerequisite of what we call "free choice"?

One thing that is obviously necessary is "volition." Rocks and trees make no choices, and have no free will. They just exist. But in the case of human beings, we have volitional creatures in view. So that criterion is met: human beings were created with volition.

But that's not the only criterion for something to be a genuine "free choice," obviously. What else is part of the minimum necessary? What do you say?

[bahman]

Well, it's not at all clear that it was "just a matter of time" at all. But let's suppose it was...that Adam was going to fall. But let's back the truck up one step: ask yourself, even if it was not inevitable that Adam would choose to disobey, why would God put an item in the Garden that made disobedience even possible? I mean, isn't that really your question?

Yes, that is another good question.

Well, think of it this way: what is the minimum prerequisite of what we call "free choice"?

One thing that is obviously necessary is "volition." Rocks and trees make no choices, and have no free will. They just exist. But in the case of human beings, we have volitional creatures in view. So that criterion is met: human beings were created with volition.

But that's not the only criterion for something to be a genuine "free choice," obviously. What else is part of the minimum necessary? What do you say?

I would say that we could choose between good things to exercise our free will. Why bother by evil? No Tree, no Serpent, live in Paradise instead of earth. Well, God could give the knowledge for free. All goods come together and we could live in peace. Why God prepared such a scene?

[Immanuel Can]

But that's not the only criterion for something to be a genuine "free choice," obviously. What else is part of the minimum necessary? What do you say?

I would say that we could choose between good things to exercise our free will. Why bother by evil?

You've intuited the problem. If you can only chose to obey God, and there is no possibility of doing otherwise, then there is no such thing as free will.

That does not mean you HAVE to choose evil in order to have free will. You could choose freely to do the good. But it does mean that if you freely choose the good, it's because you could have done otherwise. That is, you chose the good, but you did have the real option to choose evil. Absent that, you cannot speak of having chosen anything at all -- you could not have done otherwise than you did.

So a minimal requirement for human freedom is that there has to have been, at some time, in some way, something you could have chosen that was not strictly tied to the will of God.

How many? Just one would be enough. But there would have to be no less than one. If there was none at all, then it was never possible for you to choose either for or against the will of God...and you never chose at all.

[Impenitent]

if knowledge was actually from a tree, wouldn't you expect squirrels to remember where they hid their nuts?

-Imp

Hahaha!!

Not sure about the squirrels, but the problem is, if you've been a naughty boy and keep returning to eat from the tree, the medical profession might end up with a visit from you, and deem you insane. (which has certain advantages though!)

btw Are there more pens or pennies in tents? Is it intense or intents being Impenitent?

that's a question for Lemmy

-Imp

[DPMartin]

The tree of knowledge is a symbol of a situation that God purposefully put Adam in a sinful situation and wait until sin happens. So He could have His grand design plan.

no, absolutely not

the Life that God gave Adam (Luk 3:38 "Adam, which was the son of God.") which included God's image and likeness, requires belief and trust (faith) in the Lord God's Word to live it. so no you're incorrect. the tree of Life was also available to A&E before the trouble began.

he believed and or trusted her, and she believed and or trust in the words of the serpent.

So Serpent sinned first for lying to Eve? They were fooled by Serpent.

read it for yourself

[attofishpi]

no, absolutely not

the Life that God gave Adam (Luk 3:38 "Adam, which was the son of God.") which included God's image and likeness, requires belief and trust (faith) in the Lord God's Word to live it. so no you're incorrect. the tree of Life was also available to A&E before the trouble began.

he believed and or trusted her, and she believed and or trust in the words of the serpent.

So Serpent sinned first for lying to Eve? They were fooled by Serpent.

read it for yourself

...can I just point something out that might be pertinent to the topic at hand:-

Adam and Eve NEVER EXSISTED, nor was there an actual Tree, or a serpent slithering through its branches..

[attofishpi]

if knowledge was actually from a tree, wouldn't you expect squirrels to remember where they hid their nuts?

-Imp

Hahaha!!

Not sure about the squirrels, but the problem is, if you've been a naughty boy and keep returning to eat from the tree, the medical profession might end up with a visit from you, and deem you insane. (which has certain advantages though!)

btw Are there more pens or pennies in tents? Is it intense or intents being Impenitent?

that's a question for Lemmy

-Imp

Ah, the dude that works on the line for God...Lemmy Hem Dicks. (I thought you were talking about that cannibal rock dude for a moment there!)

[Dontaskme]

But that's not the only criterion for something to be a genuine "free choice," obviously. What else is part of the minimum necessary? What do you say?

I would say that we could choose between good things to exercise our free will. Why bother by evil?

You've intuited the problem. If you can only chose to obey God, and there is no possibility of doing otherwise, then there is no such thing as free will.

That does not mean you HAVE to choose evil in order to have free will. You could choose freely to do the good. But it does mean that if you freely choose the good, it's because you could have done otherwise. That is, you chose the good, but you did have the real option to choose evil. Absent that, you cannot speak of having chosen anything at all -- you could not have done otherwise than you did.

So a minimal requirement for human freedom is that there has to have been, at some time, in some way, something you could have chosen that was not strictly tied to the will of God.

How many? Just one would be enough. But there would have to be no less than one. If there was none at all, then it was never possible for you to choose either for or against the will of God...and you never chose at all.

The real question is: WHO told you you exist at all?

Oh that's right, the word did.

WHO told the word, oh that's right no one, because words are as empty as the one who knows them.

Just tell the raw truth I.C...the way it really is, and not what is believed it is.

[Immanuel Can]

The real question is: WHO told you you exist at all?

Well, that's not MY question. If you want to ask it, go ahead. I'm not troubled by that.

Descartes covered it, actually.

[bahman]

But that's not the only criterion for something to be a genuine "free choice," obviously. What else is part of the minimum necessary? What do you say?

I would say that we could choose between good things to exercise our free will. Why bother by evil?

You've intuited the problem. If you can only chose to obey God, and there is no possibility of doing otherwise, then there is no such thing as free will.

That does not mean you HAVE to choose evil in order to have free will. You could choose freely to do the good. But it does mean that if you freely choose the good, it's because you could have done otherwise. That is, you chose the good, but you did have the real option to choose evil. Absent that, you cannot speak of having chosen anything at all -- you could not have done otherwise than you did.

So a minimal requirement for human freedom is that there has to have been, at some time, in some way, something you could have chosen that was not strictly tied to the will of God.

How many? Just one would be enough. But there would have to be no less than one. If there was none at all, then it was never possible for you to choose either for or against the will of God...and you never chose at all.

As I mentioned we can choose between good things (God wants you to choose G1 which is good but you choose G2 which is good too so you can choose against God while not being punished) in the world that our nature is good such as God and there is such a thing as the tree of knowledge of good and evil.