On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:45:58 +0000, Beowulf wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:12:15 +0000, Tim Wesson
<timdotwes.sonatntl@world.dotcom> ejaculated:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:30:41 +0000, Beowulf wrote:
On 17 Jul 2003 23:22:41 GMT,
(Jason Gastrich)
ejaculated:
[...]
Genesis chapter 2 is where God clearly tells them to obey Him. They
disobeyed in chapter 3.
God may have told Adam to obey him, but he did not teach Adam that it
was good to obey god and evil to disobey god. If he had done that,
then Adam would have known good and evil, which your own god says Adam
did not. It is clearly in the text.
I get the impression that the values of the day when the myths that
became the OT were put to paper were pre-democratic, where obedience was
seen so widely as being a virtue (making perhaps a virtue of a necessity)
that the assumption of might makes right was unchallenged by that
population. After all, to ignore natural forces or overwhelming power of
authority in judging the effects of one's actions would yield outcomes
that were not desired, and this would in turn determine what was viewed
as moral and immoral. We still have this today: consider getting others
into trouble by selling them soft drugs.
I think you may have a point, but it does little to save the text from
itself because the text clearly says that Adam lacked even this
understanding of obedience.
I concur, but I suspect that it would have seemed obvious to people then,
just as it would seem obvious to people today that you don't kill someone
who is stealing cattle. I don't think that this was the case even two
centuries ago!
--
Tim Wesson
GPG Public Key ID 0xAE540A5D
.
