Freewill in Eden

Uploaded by: godlesswonder
Video Description:
Brief look at the problem I find in the concept of 'free will' for Adam and Eve before the fall - you know, when they had to DECIDE whether or not to eat of the fruit.
interesting link; http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm

Tags for this video: adam christianity eden eve free god will

Find more videos in the "Entertainment" category
See more videos uploaded by godlesswonder

Related Videos

Genesis-The fall of man	Xtian Fiction Show	Thou Shalt Not...

Out of Time	Eve's Choice	Tom Bearden - Weather Modification by Scalar Waves - 5 of 10

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

He was acting in ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

He was acting in direct contradiction of an express command of the pure and good God. You say they could not know God was good but see Romans 1.18ff men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities
—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse cont

So Adam has ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

So Adam has sufficient faculty (understanding of right and wrong) for him not to be deceived (even Eve has enough for her to have to be deceived) both know its in direct contradiction of a command of a God they know to be good and loving and yet they choose to do it. Not sure how that ends up being random?

Let's simplify this ... ( 1 month ago by NoisForme)

Let's simplify this, as it's the crux of the video; Are you proposing that Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil, before eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

clearly not in the ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

clearly not in the sense that they had it after the Fall. but Adam (at least) knew enough _about_ right and wrong that he knew his actions were sin. the point of your vid was that their choice was completely random and uninformed and presumably your real point - blameless. The Bible clearly contradicts this -Adam was not deceived - he knew God was good, he knew the command, he knew it was wrong to disobey and still went ahead.

"Adam (at least) ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

"Adam (at least) knew enough _about_ right and wrong that he knew his actions were sin" Again I ask if there is scripture that tells you this, or are you simply assuming? "The Bible clearly contradicts this...he knew God was good" Not to be terribly redundant, but where exactly does the bible say this? Where does it indicate that Adam and Eve knew right from wrong - to any degree - before they ate of the tree of knowledge? *side note - your civility has been appreciated, it is rare indeed.

flattery will get ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

flattery will get you nowhere ;-) my conclusions are drawn from Romans 1 - where it states that God's attributes have been known by man since creation - so therefore Adam nows that God is good. He also knows He is loving, all powerful etc. He knows this being has given a command. He is not deceived about the nature of his action.

That feels like ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

That feels like quite a stretch. I believe you're referring to 'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.' You seem to be saying that because Adam 'looked around', that he was made innately aware of god's nature. I can assure you this isn't the case for many a man (myself included), and I have no reason to believe it was so for him. cont

Take; "being ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

Take; "being understood through the things that are made". This is apparently the only way Adam would have had knowledge of god's nature. From this, I should be able to look at say, a rock or a tree and know that god is omnibenevolent? How would one take that away from viewing anything in nature? Quite the contrary, if I were to envision a god that created all that I see in nature, I would come away with a barbaric, wasteful deity that frankly, wasn't very good at making things. cont.

Not for an 'omni-' ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

Not for an 'omni-' sort anyway. (a handful of examples of less than optimal 'design' here; freewebs(DOT)com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm) No, I can't say that I'd agree that if Adam simply looked around, that he would have grasped the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity at all. It's a shame god didn't decide to just put that bit right in Genesis to clarify things, and instead include it in a single (open to interpretation) sentence some 50-60 years later in Romans (I think that's about right).

Since we are (I ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

Since we are (I think) debating the internal consistency of the Bible, the premise of the debate must be that the Bible is true (even if you dont actually think so, to have the debate you must proceed on that basis whether the Bible account is true is a different debate). So its not that I think that Adam looked around and understood - Romans 1 says so. Your quote is correct although arguably you could start a verse or two back of that. cont

I think the fallen ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

I think the fallen nature of our humanity when contrasted with the natural beauty of the earth speaks volumes on Gods goodness and power, and mans evil (which hopefully Ive shown in the Bible can not be blamed on God). Cant access the link you posted so not commenting.

Let me put it ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

Let me put it together if I may. We are to believe that Adam started off with some sort of innate knowledge of good/evil, but not 'full' knowledge of good/evil - having not yet eaten of the tree (which leaves me infinitely curious as to what knowledge he gained when he ate it that he didn't already have, and why this was considered evil, but I digress...), cont.

and to what degree ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

and to what degree he did have it is left to speculation of the reader, but at base, it was supposedly just enough to know that god was a good being, and therefore the eating of the fruit was 'evil', god having commanded he not eat of it (actually it wasn't so much that it was evil, more that Adam would 'surely die') all this because the line in Romans says that if one simply looks around, they'll know god's qualities. You certainly have some faith there, I'll give you that! cont.

My mind (and ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

My mind (and Ockham's razor) takes me down a much simpler path; They hadn't eaten of the tree, so they didn't yet have the knowledge. Anything else in the bible contradicting this, is inconsistent. It feels very much like a 'patch' to rectify the problem in Genesis, esp. it having been written so much later. cont.

The link wasn't ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

The link wasn't terribly important (though I despise youtube's blocking of links!). It shows several examples of things in nature that are poorly 'designed'. An interesting read, but only tangentially related to the original discussion. i.e. - "if one looks around" they will actually see many examples of systems that work very poorly, vestigial organs, wasteful function, etc. I've placed the link in the description just for kicks.

Ockam does not tell ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

Ockam does not tell you to discard necessary logical conclusions. Again, internally the Bible is consistent altho you argue this is ex post facto - I say the timing of the writing does not mean that it had not always been true. In any event, the point is that the conduct is blameworthy (I think this is the point you are really trying to disprove) cos they new everything they needed to about God and were not deceived. And that is the root of it.

"...to discard ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

"...to discard necessary logical conclusions" But my logical conclusion was that if they had not yet received knowledge from the tree, that they did not yet have knowledge. I don't find that to be a stretch at all. This is what Genesis tells us. I believe the timing (of the writing) is significant in that quite a bit later, a different author tacked on the bit about - 'by the way, everybody has known god's attributes since creation'. cont.

That is the ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

That is the extraneous part in my opinion, and it contradicts what we're told in Genesis which did not include such a statement. Now obviously one that views the bible as inerrant will not be able to view it this way, but I have to think one would come away conflicted about which part is actually correct, as they can't both be. cont.

I'm curious about ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

I'm curious about the "this is the point you are really trying to disprove" bit. You made a similar comment earlier about my 'real' motives. I thought my presentation was fairly straight forward. It stemmed largely from a debate about the apparent problem of man's freewill when coupled with god's omniscience.

The specific Adam's ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

The specific Adam's apple thing was secondary - merely an example, it just gained momentum as the video sketch progressed ('omniscient sadist' was largely about the same thing). I'm not really concerned with the guilt or innocence of 'Adam', in that I view it as a fictional tale. Hopefully that clears things a bit.

Just had another ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

Just had another look at the vid but don't see anything in there about God's foreknowledge - happy to have that debate but I don't see it raised in the vid - have I missed it? I'm not really sure what your point is - they clearly acquired some different type of knowledge after. What does it matter if - as you argue and I deny - they did not know right and wrong before? Your clip goes on about the being mindless automatons' etc. I think I have refuted that. What remains?

No, you've missed ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

No, you've missed nothing. I meant only that that was the original impetus for the vid - it then splintered into this one, and the sadist vid. This one focusing on the freewill side of that argument, the other focusing on the omniscience. Sorry for the confusion. I found it interesting that even when not coupled, both of those concepts have their own issues. And when combined it gets especially muddy (though that particular problem is able to be solved).

The reason it would ... ( 1 month ago by godlesswonder)

The reason it would matter if they had this knowledge before hand, is that much of the rest of the book is dependent on them having made a 'choice'. Without the knowledge, it could hardly be said that a choice was made. What is a choice between red and green if one is colorblind? It begs the questions of whether or not this god is a truly benevolent, just or even rational being. There isn't much left, I agree. I have enjoyed the debate, regardless. peace

sorry - one last ... ( 1 month ago by superjamjar23)

sorry - one last point re your point on choice. That was my point (lots of points here!) on the real issue you are trying to prove is that the choice/action (call it what you like) at the Fall was blameless. Because if it was not blameless you could argue that God was not benevolent (a whole other debate). If it is blameworthy then God is just. Hopefully I showed it was blameworthy. Ok, enuff said now. cheers.

Tell a friend:

Humor Shqip

Portokalli Show, Stupcat, Cumili, Humor Shkodran, Video humoristike

Freewill in Eden

URL
Embed Code