 |
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2005 1:37 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ron,
quote:
Ron: Not necessarily, you can believe it if you want, but I believe the following translation.
Gen. 3:17 "But to Adam he said, Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, You must not eat from it, cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field. NET Bible
Notes: The Hebrew phrase (ba' aburek) is more literally translated "on your account" or "because of you" The idiomatic "thanks to you" in the translation tries to capture the point of this expression.
I don't believe it because I want to. I believe it because it seems to me to be the most plausible reading. Why would Satan PUNISH folks for doing what he wants them to do? Satan wants worship. As long as folks are doing his bidding, I have no reason to assume he wants to torment them gratuitiously. He would want to ENCOURAGE such obedience.
Besides, was it not God who kept them from the tree of life? What in principle is the big difference between God ASSURING that Adam and Eve would die and ASSURING that they had some natural evils to contend with? Perhaps that was part of KNOWING evil that God saw fit to enlighten them with, thereby giving them some real problems to solve with their newly obtained KNOWLEDGE.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
 |
rsirkel
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 183
| Posted 1/3/2005 6:15 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott
quote:
I don't believe it because I want to. I believe it because it seems to me to be the most plausible reading. Why would Satan PUNISH folks for doing what he wants them to do? Satan wants worship. As long as folks are doing his bidding, I have no reason to assume he wants to torment them gratuitiously. He would want to ENCOURAGE such obedience.
Besides, was it not God who kept them from the tree of life? What in principle is the big difference between God ASSURING that Adam and Eve would die and ASSURING that they had some natural evils to contend with? Perhaps that was part of KNOWING evil that God saw fit to enlighten them with, thereby giving them some real problems to solve with their newly obtained KNOWLEDGE.
Ron
Why do you immediately place Satan causing the thorns and thistles? Are arguing from a paradigm non existent in the text quoted? The theory of the origins of Satan, Isa. and Eze., are only theories and call for double exegesis of the text to make them plausible. I accept the common theory as a usable concept but I don't trust it as the truth. The text in Genesis 3:17&18 indicates an innate relationship with the creation and created man as having delegated dominion mared by disobeying the wisdom that comes from the Creator. Yes, I am drawing from other texts to shed some plausible light on 17 and 18.
You lose me in your second paragraph. I have not followed your arguments in the other threads so I am clueless as to the principles you are refering to. Text in context is my principle, if we stick to letting the overall tenor of the historical record inform our conversation, I may be able to keep up. I like Greg's statement quote:
" If a person's faith is rooted in the New Testament, as mine is," Boyd says, "then their picture of God is centered on Jesus Christ. And Jesus didn't go around causing natural disasters. So I don't have any grounds for assuming natural disasters are ever God's will."
Therein I stand, Jesus revealing the express image of the invisible God during this probational period.
I'll sign off now, chau, and maybe talk to you after the transition. Unless you intend to have the last word. In that case I may hang in.
Peace
Ron | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/3/2005 6:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/3/2005 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott wrote:
quote:
Why would Satan PUNISH folks for doing what he wants them to do? Satan wants worship. As long as folks are doing his bidding, I have no reason to assume he wants to torment them gratuitiously. He would want to ENCOURAGE such obedience.
Reality Check:
Satan doesn't use "Positive Reinforcement."
---------
.
.
.
Positive Parenting:
http://www.extension.umn.edu/projects/positiveparenting/
Reinforcement and Punishment:
http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/wasserman/Glossary/reinforcement.html
.
.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/3/2005 7:30 AM (GMT -6) | | The above are simple examples of "behavioral" approaches.
God IS love. (i.e., 'Positive Parenting').
I have a very difficult time defining evil events (of Satan), in the same light -- no matter which behavioral definition is used.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/3/2005 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | .
I have a (related) question regarding the topic of evil, and wonder if anyone could offer insight?
I grasp the far-reaching implications of the following two categories; and, how "free will" directly impacts one category, but not the other.
1.) Evil based upon choice (i.e., humankind has the capacity to 'choose' whether they will participate acts of evil, etc.).
2.) Natural evil (naturally-occuring evil which is the result of living in a fallen world; as opposed to 'intentional' human choice).
QUESTION:
Where do 'sociopaths' fit within the current understanding of 'evil'??
i.e., Human beings who appear to be born -- with no conscience.
-----
SEE: 'Without Conscience', by Dr. Robert Hare
SEE: 'Bad Boys, Bad Men; Confronting Antisocial Personality Disorder,' by
Dr. Donald Black
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/3/2005 9:20 AM (GMT -6) | | .
Greetings, Laika.
I appreciate your input.
Indeed, I always viewed child-development in exactly the same way;
and, I still believe that in 99% of the cases, 'conscience' (the capacity to feel remorse, empathy and choose ethical behavior), is largely shaped by the behavior that parents model.
However, it appears that this is not always the case.
A minority of individuals (from "typical" environments with normally developing siblings), appear innately impaired, from the onset of life, in the development of "conscience".
It is said that such individuals know the difference between right and wrong; however, they have no hesitation to choose predator-type behavior, etc.
If their behavior is significantly deviant (although sometimes it is not), they come to the attention of mental health professionals; and, the judicial system, and receive the diagnosis of "sociopath," or antisocial personality disorder.
Therefore,
IF there may be inherent (inborn) characteristics that cause certain populations (sociopaths, etc.) to be at *increased risk* for making "unethical" choices, how can we, as Christians, even begin to comprehend something that is so far beyond our understanding of "evil?"
Would this be defined as "natural" evil? i.e., The result of a FALLEN WORLD, as opposed to evil that occurred solely as the result of (unimpaired) "free will" choices??
To further illustrate how inborn characteristics and/or conditions (which may be caused by chemical imbalances; or, disease, etc.) can impact behavioral 'choices'; it is known that some inborn impairments, such as paranoid schizophrenia, are caused by genetics. However, before such diseases were adequately understood, "poor parenting" was thought to be the cause.
Along the same line, scientists now believe that ASPD ("antisocial personality disorder") is related to genetics and/or impaired brain chemistry, in this case, a serotonin imbalance.
My question is, how do we grapple with what appears to be a type or variation of "evil" -- that may be inborn?
Are these questions making any sense?
I'm struggling to understand such issues, so I truly appreciate any and all insight that may be offered...
Peace & blessings,
<><
Laika wrote:
quote:
People aren't born with a conscience. It's developed, or not developed, during the early, formative years.
That's why young children missing parents is such a tragedy.
There is no such thing as "quality time" to a child. The only thing that matters is "quantity time".
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 1/3/2005 9:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
People aren't born with a conscience. It's developed, or not developed, during the early, formative years.
That's why young children missing parents is such a tragedy.
What about Adam and Eve, how did their consciences develop? They sure acted like they had a guilty conscience once they ate from the forbidden tree.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/3/2005 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
People aren't born with a conscience. It's developed, or not developed, during the early, formative years.
That's why young children missing parents is such a tragedy.
What about Adam and Eve, how did their consciences develop? They sure acted like they had a guilty conscience once they ate from the forbidden tree.
I think it would be more accurate to say people aren't born with their consciences fully developed. The conscience is an inherent faculty of personality, however, and as such, it must be something we are born with, even if only in a "seed" stage. And Romans 2 reveals that all people do have a conscience by which they all know right from wrong, so it has to be something inherent to humanity and not simply something formed later in life.
The reason sociopaths develop into such monsters is because of a lack of getting their basic psychological needs met, especially as a child but even on into adulthood; namely, the need for survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun. Of course, the lack of any of the above needs does not EXCUSE criminal behavior, but it can provide us with an explanation as to why such antisocial activity is chosen by the perpetrator.
As far as natural disasters go, obviously, God does at times send them. Scripture is clear on that fact at least. That said, the Bible indicates in many places that the natural order has been quite disrupted/cursed as a result of the rebellion of Adam & Eve (Gen. 3).
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/3/2005 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower:
quote:
Indeed, I always viewed child-development in exactly the same way;
and, I still believe that in 99% of the cases, 'conscience' (the capacity to feel remorse, empathy and choose ethical behavior), is largely shaped by the behavior that parents model.
However, it appears that this is not always the case.
A minority of individuals (from "typical" environments with normally developing siblings), appear innately impaired, from the onset of life, in the development of "conscience".
It is said that such individuals know the difference between right and wrong; however, they have no hesitation to choose predator-type behavior, etc.
If their behavior is significantly deviant (although sometimes it is not), they come to the attention of mental health professionals; and, the judicial system, and receive the diagnosis of "sociopath," or antisocial personality disorder.
I have two in-laws who have taken chemicals to 'balance' their brains their whole adult lives. Even within this 'handicap', one has chosen to lead a productive life, raising four children and leading many people to the Lord as a missionary. The other has chosen to let their handicap rule their life.
I think there is still some ability among the lesser handicapped to make choices. Only God knows where the line is.... the important thing, the special (boundary) cases don't make the rule.
sparknheart:
quote:
What about Adam and Eve, how did their consciences develop? They sure acted like they had a guilty conscience once they ate from the forbidden tree.
They "walked with God", don't you think they learned from Him?
Sheriff Earp:
quote:
I think it would be more accurate to say people aren't born with their consciences fully developed. The conscience is an inherent faculty of personality, however, and as such, it must be something we are born with, even if only in a "seed" stage. And Romans 2 reveals that all people do have a conscience by which they all know right from wrong, so it has to be something inherent to humanity and not simply something formed later in life.
I'm saying no conscience at birth, developed within the first five years, you're saying a "seed" conscience developed before "later" in life. I don't see much difference.
The important thing is, they've completed mapping the human genome and NO gene was found to carry "sin". 
group hug
sparknheart, I'll take my wallet back, now
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 1/3/2005 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings, John & Laika.
I really appreciate your help.
I completely agree with you on many levels; however, I wonder if, in the case of sociopaths (Antisocial Personality Disorder), the genesis of problem isn't far more complicated.
John wrote:
... quote:
The conscience is an inherent faculty of personality, however, and as such, it must be something we are born with, even if only in a "seed" stage.
That makes sense; however...
What if the "seed" that you spoke of is damaged before birth, or genetically quirky; just as other genetic birth-defects (etc.), can cause an innocent child to be born with a visual impairment? Or, with other disorders that impact functioning or "personality"?
And, what if the result is impaired development in a particualar area -- such as in the areas of remorse / ethical behavior /conscience?
John wrote:
quote:
And Romans 2 reveals that all people do have a conscience by which they all know right from wrong, so it has to be something inherent to humanity and not simply something formed later in life.
I agree that a "conscience" is (typically) inherent to humanity.
And, we know that in regard to child-rearing, a loving environment is ideal; and, an abusive environment would delay (or, derail) development.
However, we also know that certain inborn conditions that exist in this FALLEN WORLD -- impair "normal" development, even in the most loving parental home.
For example, there are other individuals who are born with a variety
of neurological conditions -- which impair intellectual/cognitive development (i.e., mental retardation).
Although such children are certainly not "conscience-impaired," they may never develop a full understanding of "right from wrong."
I believe that in the perfect world that God envisioned for His beloved children, such struggles would not exist. However, in this fallen world, there are all manner of inborn frailties and conditions that were not God's ideal.
Therefore, if a structural, metabolic and/or chemical imbalance of the brain (such as schizophrenia) can radically interfere with human behavior, why would it be an impossible concept for a DIFFERENT type of inborn condition -- to impact ones ability to feel remorse, or make 'ethical' decisions?
Sociopaths come from all walks of life. Good homes. Bad homes.
They are not created; they are born with a lifelong disorder.
IF this is true (and, medical evidence supports the genetic or biochemical explanation for the development of Antisocial Personality Disorder), how do we, as believers, begin to "think out of the box" regarding our understanding of a possible propensity for inborn evil?
We all know that there are human beings who engage in monstrous behavior. In the past, we have all assumed that their behavior was completely by choice.
What if it wasn't?
Is it then "natural" evil as opposed to evil by choice?
I am asking questions.
I don't have the answers.
. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/3/2005 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Mayflower,
My use of the term, "seed" in this case was meant metaphorically, obviously. As such, the comparison between physical birth defects and "mental illness" is to my way of thinking not warranted, though certainly I agree there can be instances in which brain disease/injury of some kind can lead to behavior considered antisocial.
quote:
I agree that a "conscience" is (typically) inherent to humanity.
Romans 1 & 2 don't say conscience is "typically" inherent to humanity, but is in fact universal. It says very plainly that "all people are without excuse."
quote:
And, we know that in regard to child-rearing, a loving environment is ideal; and, an abusive environment would delay (or, derail) development.
Certainly.
quote:
However, we also know that certain inborn conditions that exist in this FALLEN WORLD -- impair "normal" development, even in the most loving parental home.
For example, there are other individuals who are born with a variety
of neurological conditions -- which impair intellectual/cognitive development (i.e., mental retardation). Although such children are certainly not "conscience-impaired," they may never develop a full understanding of "right from wrong."
Mentally retarded individuals are a different category altogether from sociopaths. The mentally retarded actually have a physical defect in their brain development. Sociopaths typically are quite intelligent, however, which is the opposite of mental retardation (extremely low IQ)
quote:
They are not created; they are born with a lifelong disorder.
If true, what better EXCUSE could anyone have for acting in an evil manner?
quote:
IF this is true (and, medical evidence supports the biochemical explanation for the development of Antisocial Personality Disorder), how do we, as believers, begin to "think out of the box" regarding our understanding of a possible propensity for inborn evil?
As Dr. Glasser (who is both a psychologist and a board-certified psychiatrist with an M.D.) points out, the evidence does not prove that there is a biochemical explanation for the development of APD. While biochemistry can certainly influence one's behavior, it is not the case that one's choices are caused by one's biochemistry, or else all moral responsibility for one's actions can be quite easily denied by anyone. Dr. Glasser argues that it is just as probable that the stress generated by the lack in basic psychological needs being fulfilled is what causes a person's biochemistry to be altered. It is certainly true that serotonin is depleted by stress.
Are we really willing to say that someone such as Hitler or Manson were actually just doing what their biochemistry demanded, that they could not have chosen otherwise? The appeal to biochemistry to explain behavior is every bit as deterministic as old-school Calvinism.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Ron,
quote:
Why do you immediately place Satan causing the thorns and thistles? Are arguing from a paradigm non existent in the text quoted? The theory of the origins of Satan, Isa. and Eze., are only theories and call for double exegesis of the text to make them plausible. I accept the common theory as a usable concept but I don't trust it as the truth. The text in Genesis 3:17&18 indicates an innate relationship with the creation and created man as having delegated dominion mared by disobeying the wisdom that comes from the Creator. Yes, I am drawing from other texts to shed some plausible light on 17 and 18.
I'm NOT saying that Satan caused the thorns and thistles. I'm saying God did.
quote:
You lose me in your second paragraph. I have not followed your arguments in the other threads so I am clueless as to the principles you are refering to. Text in context is my principle, if we stick to letting the overall tenor of the historical record inform our conversation, I may be able to keep up. I like Greg's statement
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" If a person's faith is rooted in the New Testament, as mine is," Boyd says, "then their picture of God is centered on Jesus Christ. And Jesus didn't go around causing natural disasters. So I don't have any grounds for assuming natural disasters are ever God's will."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therein I stand, Jesus revealing the express image of the invisible God during this probational period.
To use the New Testament to completely interpret Genesis is exactly the opposite of "text in context." Doc has argued heretofore for the principle that a text should be interpreted according to the author's intent with particular reference to it's original audience. THAT'S text in context.
What did Jesus say that would indicate that it was not God that caused the thorns and thistles?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2005 3:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
Why would Satan PUNISH folks for doing what he wants them to do? Satan wants worship. As long as folks are doing his bidding, I have no reason to assume he wants to torment them gratuitiously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're kidding, aren't you?
1. Satan is rebelling against God and in his rebellion wants to destroy people. He didn't seek Job's obedience, he sought Job's destruction.
2. Jesus said the thief came to "steal, kill, and destroy".
3. Those people sacrificing their children to Moloch by burning them were both worshipping Satan and being destroyed at the same time.
4. All those people afflicted with diseases and demons that Jesus healed, were being destroyed by Satan. Unless you consider disease and demonic oppression as the positive influence of Satan.
I'm not kidding. Obviously Satan kills and mames, but so does God. The question is, WHY do Satan and God kill and mame WHO they kill and mame. To suppose that Satan wants to totally destroy all humanity seems completely counter to what Satan's goal is - WORSHIP. In Revelation, it is those who will NOT take the mark of the beast that are killed by him, NOT the ones who WILL take the mark and WORSHIP the beast. Hence, to say that Satan cursed the ground BECAUSE they ate of the tree does not seem obvious from the text. But GOD DID have reason to bring some consequence to their disobedience.
So it seems more intuitive to suppose that God cursed the ground. And why is that more problematic than God drowning babies in the Flood and killing babies in the Exodous and having the Israelites kill babies in the Conquest. I don't see why one is more problematic than the others. Now if you want to claim that the others are mythological, then why not assume that the Genesis account is mythological, too?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2005 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
To suppose that Satan wants to totally destroy all humanity seems completely counter to what Satan's goal is - WORSHIP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worship? Satan seeks destruction. Deal with what I posted:
1. Job: destruction, not worship.
2. The thief comes to "steal, kill and destroy".
3. Burning children to Moloch is destructive.
4. Diseases, demon possession, sure didn't inspire "worship" in Jesus' day.
Revelation shows rebellion against God, not a heavenly satanic kingdom. Think the armies of Satan are in paradise bliss? bullshite
I did deal with it. I conceded that Satan does kill. But he doesn't kill EVERYBODY. Just like God doesn't.
quote:
Sartre? insanity
Hitler? early grave
Is drug addiction a picnic?
I'm a little slow, Laika. You'll have to interpret, here!
quote:
There's nothing volitional in the Genesis account. God is stating an observational account, "cursed is the ground because of you". 'You' being the causative agent.j
If you think it is more plausible that ADAM cursed the ground, then I don't know what to say. It would seem that a man that could curse the ground, bring forth thorns and thistles, etc. could, with THAT SAME AWESOME POWER, reverse all of that and live a life of leisure!!
quote:
Your presuppositions are billowing up and over your head. The text doesn't support them. Look at the text.
Aye! Where in the text does it indicate that God had given Adam the power to curse the ground and bring forth thorns and thistles and cause the serpent to crawl on it's belly and ...... Not saying it's not there, but TEACH ME. I don't see it. But it is DEFINITELY in the text that GOD had SUCH POWER!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/3/2005 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Laika,
quote:
Jeff: And why is that more problematic than God drowning babies in the Flood and killing babies in the Exodous and having the Israelites kill babies in the Conquest. I don't see why one is more problematic than the others. Now if you want to claim that the others are mythological, then why not assume that the Genesis account is mythological, too?
And since you demand I answer your challenge, how 'bout explaining mine.
The flood and the land of Canaan were so bad they were special cases.
1. God states why they were so bad and that makes them special cases.
2. None righteous left in the pre-flood world and in Canaan. Righteousness is a protective container that scripture time and again shows protected people; the ark, the blood on the lintels, the body on the cross...
3. God is not punishing them correctively, He's wiping them out. It's not gratuitous, it's to protect the rest of the world.
Now if you think this explains the gratuitous destruction of innocents and righteous since those days, you need to provide the scripture that lays out the specific incidents as the flood and land of Canaan did. It's the righteous in the world, presently, that protect the others from the world being destroyed.
I'm a slow poster and revise my posts for a bit... give me time, dammit....
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2005 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: And why is that more problematic than God drowning babies in the Flood and killing babies in the Exodous and having the Israelites kill babies in the Conquest. I don't see why one is more problematic than the others. Now if you want to claim that the others are mythological, then why not assume that the Genesis account is mythological, too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since you demand I answer your challenge, how 'bout explaining mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The flood and the land of Canaan were so bad they were special cases.
1. God states why they were so bad and that makes them special cases.
2. None righteousness left in the pre-flood world and in Canaan. Righteousness is a protective container that scripture time and again showed protected people; the ark, the blood on the lintels, the body on the cross...
3. God is not punishing them correctively, He's wiping them out. It's not gratuitous, it's to protect the rest of the world.
Now if you think this explains the gratuitous destruction of innocents and righteous since those days, you need to provide the scripture that lays out the specific incidents as the flood and land of Canaan did. It's the righteous in the world, presently, that protect the others from the world being destroyed.
Take your time...
Adam and Eve were the only people in the world. THEY had just done the one thing that God had forbid they do. He brought some natural evil into the world for THEIR sake, since they couldn't be terminated without progeny. What's the problem? That their descendants suffered for the sin of their father? That's the way the world works even to this day.
Now, answer me how you know that Adam had the power to curse the ground, etc.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 113 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|