by Mr Ben 8 Replies latest jw friends
(slightly paraphrased from Genesis)
1. You have the freedom to use your life to obey me or disobey me.
2. But if you choose the latter, I will take away your life (and therefore the ability to choose).
How free is biblical free will really?
Religion n.
An organisation designed to promote atheism.
Ive said this at least twice before on this board but feel compelled to say it again.
Theres something fishy about that whole Garden of Eden thing.
God tested the humans.What does such a test prove?Why does God feel compelled to test?
Also, the test was in regard of Knowledge. God wanted to keep the humans in ignorance of certain things such as a knowledge of "good and evil. Once the humans had eaten, what did God say? "They have become like us".
Who is "US"?.This leads to Elohim, or plural God reasoning.
Enuff said....
The Watchtower's take on Adam and Eve makes no sense. For any "God" would certainly know the outcome of the "test" Genesis tells us He gave to Adam and Eve. Heck, any dope could have guessed how things would turn out.
God told Adam that if he ate some fruit he would die. God then put Adam alone in that garden for how long? Then God gave him a beautiful naked woman as his new best friend, "helper" and lover. Now this gorgeous babe tells Adam she thinks they should eat the forbidden fruit. Besides, she tells him, she's heard that if they do they wont really die at all.
God didn't need to see into the future to figure out what Adam was going to do under those circumstances. Anyone could have guessed who Adam was going to care most about pleasing? After sleeping with squirrels for what JWs tell us was quite a few years, what man wouldn't have risked his life to make sure he didn't lose that lady's love and affection? Even if God then "chose not to" look into the future, as JWs say, the God who created man would have had to have had a very poor knowledge of His own creation not to have known that Adam was certainly going to fail that "test."
The only way the story of Adam and Eve makes sense is to understand that God not only knew how things were going to end up in Eden, but that He deliberately set the whole thing up to make a point. What point? This one. If Adam in paradise, without a problem in the world, could not manage to obey one simple command from God, what chance does any human being have of living their entire trouble-plagued life without sinning either in word, thought or deed? No chance at all. That is the lesson that was illustrated in Eden. Human beings have a sinful nature. A nature which God gave us.
>(slightly paraphrased from Genesis)
>1. You have the freedom to use your life to obey me or disobey me.
>2. But if you choose the latter, I will take away your life (and
>therefore the ability to choose). How free is biblical free will
>really?
I've thought about this a lot. It's always been my assertion that if I hold a gun up to your head and tell you that if you raise your right hand I will blow your head off, you are not exercising your free will if you refrain from raising your right hand.
What if you're a parent? When you tell your children to stay out of the cookie jar (we'll call it the "tree of life") and they disobey you (as did Adam and Eve) - do you head for your closet to get your trusty .45 out and execute them for it?
If not, do you consider yourself more moral than the God of the OT?
Questions, questions.
Besides this, I've always had a problem with how the WTBTS portrays the Genesis story. They say that Jesus' reference to Satan as the 'father of the lie' is borne out in Genesis 3. I say it's nothing of the sort, and that it couldn't be more plain if you actually just READ the story.
Satan basically claimed the fruit was magic and that it would impart real, actual knowledge to Adam and Eve. It's obvious that he was right:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." (Genesis 3:7 NIV)
Also, it seems to me that Satan didn't actually say that Adam and Eve wouldn't die, he simply said that eating the fruit would not kill them in and of itself. Although the NWT renders Genesis 3:4 as "you positively will not die," most render the scripture as "you will not surely die," implying that Satan knew that even after they ate of the fruit, they would still be alive and that they could still live forever.
And what do you know? God Himself acknowledges both of these things as being facts a few short verses later:
"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22)
So to recoup, Satan told Adam and Eve that eating of the fruit would not necessarily kill them, but would give them a magical knowledge of morality.
Where's the lie? It seems to me that Satan had it 100% correct, and that he knew that God was engaging in an advanced sort of tomfoolery with these two. I don't take the Genesis account seriously, but if I did, I would have to say that Satan seems to me to be the one that's coming off as the one being more honest and straightforward.
Am I wrong?
A7
I think that in order to understand free will one must understand predeterminism and predestination.
. http://www.engl.virginia.edu/courses/enlt248/f97/3/predet~1.htm
blondie; doesn't either concept make the Genesis account more ridiculous?
Doesn't either concept jar with freewill?
Off course, there is RELATIVE freewill and ABSOLUTE freewill.
Very few people can exercise absolute freewill; I have to go to work, I cannot kill people who piss me off, I can only spend what I earn. Well, actually, I can exercise absolute freewill, but unless my actions were all leagl, I would soon end up in jail.
To argue "an inherited blueprint specifies the final outcome of an individual's development" or that god "predestines from eternity the salvation of certain souls" make it seem to me you are saying this is how god wanted it to be; set a task you know they'll fail, then punish them for it, in such a way that removes any chance they have of governing themselves succesfully ANYWAY, but making out you're letting them have a fair chance at proving their point.
A famous author and his brother had a club once. You could only join if you could stand in a corner for half an hour and NOT think of a polar bear. A clear impossibility once one is told the rules. Reminds me of the Genesis 'test'.
The Genesis account is obviously symbolic from it's very beginining. It's just another creation myth, and as with the others, it looks silly looked at in terms of modern science or ethical standards.
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Exactly so, exactly so. There is actually no free will involved in any real sense. Quite the contrary, it is an evidence of the biblical god's utter denial of human free will & dignity. Plainly it is a creation myth for a simple people.
Agentseven, interesting thoughts indeed.
Religion n.
An organisation designed to promote atheism.
Hi Abaddon, not trying to prove the WTS definition of free will. But in discussing it, I just felt it would help to look at some other ideas. Among Christian groups predestination and free will are considered opposite views yet both based on the Bible. The Catholic church thinks both ideas are compatible. Predeterminism originated in the philosophical environs of humans and even has application in science. I don't think the concept of "free will" can be discussed without all three being considered: free will, predestination, and predeterminism.
>I've thought about this a lot. It's always been my assertion that if I hold a gun up to your head and tell you that if you raise your right hand I will blow your head off, you are not exercising your free will if you refrain from raising your right hand. What if you're a parent? When you tell your children to stay out of the cookie jar (we'll call it the "tree of life") and they disobey you (as did Adam and Eve) - do you head for your closet to get your trusty .45 out and execute them for it?
You are talking about equal beings. You cannot apply this analogy to 'created' and 'creator', since the former is dependent on the latter for existence.
What we have in the creation account is rebellion, and the perps are warned in advance. Satan makes his move (which is allowed by God, since He is sovereign and determines how far Satan can go, see the book of Job), Eve is fooled by Satan's trickery and Adam later decides that Eve is more important than God, so he partakes.
We are talking about perfect, created beings who all have the freedom to choose their course of action. They set the game in motion and chose rebellion rather than loving God enough to be obedient.
>Besides this, I've always had a problem with how the WTBTS portrays the Genesis story. They say that Jesus' reference to Satan as the 'father of the lie' is borne out in Genesis 3. I say it's nothing of the sort, and that it couldn't be more plain if you actually just READ the story. Satan basically claimed the fruit was magic and that it would impart real, actual knowledge to Adam and Eve.
No. It was their disobedience and the separation (from God) is what "opened their eyes". Satan claimed that Adam and Eve would become "like God" and that was the lie, for he knew that the couple would not be able to commune directly with God due to His own holiness and righteousness.
>It's obvious that he was right:
"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves." (Genesis 3:7 NIV)
Wrong, see above.
>Also, it seems to me that Satan didn't actually say that Adam and Eve wouldn't die, he simply said that eating the fruit would not kill them in and of itself. Although the NWT renders Genesis 3:4 as "you positively will not die," most render the scripture as "you will not surely die," implying that Satan knew that even after they ate of the fruit, they would still be alive and that they could still live forever. And what do you know? God Himself acknowledges both of these things as being facts a few short verses later: "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22) So to recoup, Satan told Adam and Eve that eating of the fruit would not necessarily kill them, but would give them a magical knowledge of morality.
They already knew 'good' and it was only the evil that was learned when they rebelled against God. Here is where you make your mistake. You assume that God mean't a physical death. This is probably due to the JW heresy that denies the immortal soul. This is one of the first contradictions that JWs let themselves in for in their obstinate reasoning. Yes, the "tree of life" could have maintained their physical bodies as long as it lived. However, they were now gradually losing their mental balance to depravity. God has kept mankind from the tree until perfection could be restored and we see it returns to the "new earth" of Revelation 21
>Where's the lie? It seems to me that Satan had it 100% correct, and that he knew that God was engaging in an advanced sort of tomfoolery with these two. I don't take the Genesis account seriously, but if I did, I would have to say that Satan seems to me to be the one that's coming off as the one being more honest and straightforward. Am I wrong?
Totally. God has full knowledge of all events in the stream of time or He would not be God, since He would suffer the restriction of time. He lives outside of this concept and has only rarely used a theophany to appear on earth or in the form of a man, Christ Jesus.
Rex
