Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems to me that God prefers his worshipers to remain on the level of children. He wants their faith to be blind, much as a child's faith in their parents can be blind until they realize their parents are fallible. He would have kept Adam and Eve ignorant forever if he could have. It even bothers me when heaven is presented as a place where 'all are one in God's love", which implies there is no individuality.
Call it prideful, but if I believed in a God, I would want him to love me as a questioning adult. I would want him to encourage knowledge, not ignorance, and certainly not to punish those who seek it.
So, what exactly is so bad about that first 'original sin'? Why did God want to keep Adam and Eve as basically housepets?
Well if God answered to your specifications as to what kind of person he should be, then what would be the point of him qualifying to be the Almighty Ruler and Originator of all things? How would he ever be able to guide and counsel us if here were just another imperfect man of flesh and bone, no wiser than ourselves?
We would end up with about as much reverence him and his word as we have for President Obama. Yes thats right: None.
The tree of knowledge was a literal tree. However, it represented God’s right as Ruler to decide what is good and bad for his human creation. To eat from the tree, therefore, was not just an act of theft—taking that which belonged to God—but also a presumptuous grasp at moral independence, or self-determination. Note that after lyingly telling Eve that if she and her husband ate the fruit, they ‘positively would not die,’ Satan speaking as a serpent, asserted: “For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”—Genesis 3:4,5.
When they ate the fruit, however, Adam and Eve did not receive godlike enlightenment on good and bad. In fact, Eve said to God: “The serpent—it deceived me.” Still, she knew of God’s command, even restating it to the serpent, Satan’s mouthpiece. Hence, her act was one of willful disobedience. Adam, though, was not deceived. Instead of loyally obeying his Creator, he listened to his wife and followed her independent course.—Genesis 3:6,17.
The forbidden fruit was not sexual relations. By asserting their independence, Adam and Eve irreparably damaged their relationship with God and inflicted sin’s imprint upon their organism, right to its genetic foundations. True, they lived for hundreds of years, but they began to die “in the day” of their sin, as a branch severed from a tree would. Moreover, for the first time, they sensed an internal disharmony. They felt naked and tried to hide from God. They also felt guilt, insecurity, and shame. Their sin produced an upheaval within them, their consciences accusing them of wrongdoing.
To be true to himself and to his holy standards, God justly sentenced Adam and Eve to death and expelled them from the garden of Eden. Thus, Paradise, happiness, and everlasting life were lost, while sin, suffering, and death resulted. What a tragic development for the human race! However, immediately after sentencing the couple, God promised to undo all the harm resulting from their sin without compromising his own righteous standards. That time is very near.
Well if God answered to your specifications as to what kind of person he should be, then what would be the point of him qualifying to be the Almighty Ruler and Originator of all things? How would he ever be able to guide and counsel us if here were just another imperfect man of flesh and bone, no wiser than ourselves?
We would end up with about as much reverence him and his word as we have for President Obama. Yes thats right: None.
The tree of knowledge was a literal tree. However, it represented God’s right as Ruler to decide what is good and bad for his human creation. To eat from the tree, therefore, was not just an act of theft—taking that which belonged to God—but also a presumptuous grasp at moral independence, or self-determination. Note that after lyingly telling Eve that if she and her husband ate the fruit, they ‘positively would not die,’ Satan speaking as a serpent, asserted: “For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”—Genesis 3:4,5.
When they ate the fruit, however, Adam and Eve did not receive godlike enlightenment on good and bad. In fact, Eve said to God: “The serpent—it deceived me.” Still, she knew of God’s command, even restating it to the serpent, Satan’s mouthpiece. Hence, her act was one of willful disobedience. Adam, though, was not deceived. Instead of loyally obeying his Creator, he listened to his wife and followed her independent course.—Genesis 3:6,17.
The forbidden fruit was not sexual relations. By asserting their independence, Adam and Eve irreparably damaged their relationship with God and inflicted sin’s imprint upon their organism, right to its genetic foundations. True, they lived for hundreds of years, but they began to die “in the day” of their sin, as a branch severed from a tree would. Moreover, for the first time, they sensed an internal disharmony. They felt naked and tried to hide from God. They also felt guilt, insecurity, and shame. Their sin produced an upheaval within them, their consciences accusing them of wrongdoing.
To be true to himself and to his holy standards, God justly sentenced Adam and Eve to death and expelled them from the garden of Eden. Thus, Paradise, happiness, and everlasting life were lost, while sin, suffering, and death resulted. What a tragic development for the human race! However, immediately after sentencing the couple, God promised to undo all the harm resulting from their sin without compromising his own righteous standards. That time is very near.
Do you selectively read, or what?
You say that "Adam and Eve" (Eve being a name not even in use yet - she was termed "the woman" in the story) did not receive "enlightenment"? Read the story again, and get rid of your strange idea that the serpent was Satan - or the mouthpiece of Satan. Unless the biblical author of Genesis is a liar, you are putting later interpreters words in his mouth concerning the identity of the serpent. It was a serpent - end of story.
As for enlightenment and "the knowledge of good and evil", the text has the serpent say "God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God [or gods] who know good and bad" (Gen. 3:4). And sure enough, immediately after the two of them ate, "the eyes of both of them were opened and they perceived that they were naked" (3:7). Now a bad reader might think that the text says that "they perceived ONLY that they were naked - as a result eating from the tree" - but luckily, the text doesn't say that. And just in case there's any doubt as to the new status the humans gained from eating from the tree, the text later says "And [Yahweh] God said, 'Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!' So [Yahweh] God banished him from the garden of Eden" (3:22-23).
Now, it's pretty clear from the text (and not from your later interpretation that ignores the text) that "the eyes of both of them were open" and "the man has become like on of us" (the gods/God), "knowing good and evil". You seem like the type of person who takes scripture literally (you DID say the tree was a literal tree, didn't you?) - so I don't understand how you can ignore the text, and instead rely on what your Sunday School teacher has drilled into your head.
Now, for your other assumptions - what was the woman deceived about? That her eyes would be opened? No - for the text clearly states that it happened, and God himself affirmed this. Was it that she would not die? Possibly - though they certainly did not die "in the day that they ate of the tree" (though it's possible that this also yields, as NJPS translates, "for as soon as you eat of it, you shall die") - they lived to ripe old ages, in fact. Was she duped into disobeying God? Why, yes, she was - and that's probably what she meant in her paltry excuse.
The man, by the way, was right next to her the whole time - as the Hebrew clearly indicates, but many English translations fail to mention, in deference to this idea that poor Adam knew nothing at all about what was going on, and that he was deceived by his wife into eating simply because she said "hey, eat this or I'll nag you". No - the text says otherwise. Just because the Curse (which goes in descending order - woman, man, serpent) starts with each person passing the buck, does not mean that the humans were not making excuses: "the serpent tricked me", "the woman YOU gave me tricked me". The man actually places part of the blame ON God when he phrases it in that manner.
So no - both humans were involved, both hear the serpent, both of them received "enlightenment" (or however you want to call it) - for the "tree of the knowing of good and bad" or "good and evil" was probably a merism. Like our sayings "from A to Z" or "come all, both young and old": obviously, these sayings don't involved JUST A and Z, and toddlers and senior citizens.
Cling to your Christian interpretation, and you are forced with ignoring what the text clearly and plainly says. You may not like the outcome of reading the text in this way - but that's exactly why the later interpreters give it the slanted reading you are repeating to us in your post. But don't take my word for it - consult any good translation, with notes, and you'll find most competent translators agreeing that this story has been interpreted out of all proportions for a long time. Luckily, our knowledge of Hebrew has grown significantly since the KJV. Heck, the New Testament authors who used this story to create some sort of Original Sin weren't even using the original Hebrew - they were using the Greek Septuagint translation, which is surprisingly innacurate and paraphrasistic in places.
A horrific story painted by Mr. Opinionated there. A story of a dictator sentencing to death those that would presume to think for themselves and aspire towards freedom. Follow by a promise to so kind as to undo the wrongs that the subjects did which were actually the wrongs of the dictator.
Thankfully, despite the ominous closing of "That time is very near" there is literally nothing on offer from Mr. O to even remotely suggest any of this is true, real, relevant or even that interesting.
Let it be a lesson to all would be dictators though, no matter what threats of death and pain you level against your slaves.... and no matter how superior and powerful and righteous and moral a being you THINK you are compared to them.... they will always fight back and aspire towards independence and freedom.
To say a sweet young babe that is less than a year old has original sin is simply wicked..In Orthodox Christianity..a child was in the angelic and perfect state until he was 7 years old..by then the imperfections or sins of the world would start to take hold and influence the child...I can sort of understand that - but to say that we are born bad is stupid. I don't see any evidence of that...It is much like saying that the mother of Jesus was a virgin and that all other human birth is tainted...THIS is political in nature - to create a submissive mindset where a high archy of religious or political dominators could rule you by guilt that is not warranted.
To say a sweet young babe that is less than a year old has original sin is simply wicked..In Orthodox Christianity..a child was in the angelic and perfect state until he was 7 years old..by then the imperfections or sins of the world would start to take hold and influence the child...I can sort of understand that - but to say that we are born bad is stupid. I don't see any evidence of that...It is much like saying that the mother of Jesus was a virgin and that all other human birth is tainted...THIS is political in nature - to create a submissive mindset where a high archy of religious or political dominators could rule you by guilt that is not warranted.
I don't know - until babies and children undergo a sever regimen of "civilizing" they are little monsters for the most part. Selfish, grasping, violent little demons, rather than angels lol! They are only angels when they are acting like angels, and that's either when they are sleeping, or when they want something. Maybe I'm pessimistic.
I chalk this up to our animal nature, however - not some sort of inherited sin (which goes directly contrary to the prophetic utterance that "no longer shall the teeth of the children be set on edge for the grapes their parents ate" (or something like that). A better rejection of the future doctrine of Original Sin I cannot find. Corporate Responsibility was a biblical concept that was slowly rejected by later writers - it just didn't seem Just. Christians (and Augustine) would have done well to have studied this evolution of the concept in the Hebrew Bible, methinks.
It is as irrational as punishing your child for life, and their children, and their children, because your kid took a cookie out of the cookie jar when they were told not to................
Good point. To make matters worse he puts said cookie jar where they can reach it and points it out, and says do NOT eat of that tree. I've heard from some that God was testing them. Why would an ALL knowing God test his creation?
Good point. To make matters worse he puts said cookie jar where they can reach it and points it out, and says do NOT eat of that tree. I've heard from some that God was testing them. Why would an ALL knowing God test his creation?
It's possible that, to the biblical author, God was torn between his Justice and his need for creatures that had free will and could choose the good because they wanted to, not because they were automotons who would choose the good because they had no other choice.
It's possible that the prohibition was put there simply to force them to realize (probably from eating from the tree) that they had free will, and were not created as mere servants of the gods. The downside to this requirement for a creature that would (hopefully) choose the good was that God, as a god of Justice, was forced to punish them. Justice is not served when mercy is shown - it perverts justice.
This is just one possible interpretation of the story. The biblical authors were highly sophisticated in many ways, so I always have found it difficult to accept the whole "set-up" theory - it just doesn't seem like a story that a religious adherent would pen about his god, does it? For that reason, I like the suggestion of the above interpretation (not my own - it's been around for a while).
In the end, if one wishes to look at the tale as an etiological story explaining some of the basic facts of existence (Why must we work? Why must woman have pain in childbirth? Why do we die? Why do snakes have no legs? Why do woman have a sexual desire towards their husbands, even though this perpertuates patriarchal male dominance? Why does man even HAVE this patriarchal dominance?) - the punishment motif really just serves the ends of the biblical author, rather than being an accurate reflection of God. For me - it's a deep story, a loss of innocence tale that shows how we are different from animals, but at a severe price. What once had been an idyllic moral paradise where anything was permitted (save for eating from the tree of the knowing of good and evil - which was probably a merism for the tree of knowing "everything"), and mankind could not be held accountable for its actions (like when a fox eats a mother rabbit and its offspring - Nature does not condemn) - came crashing down to the ground once the humans learned what morality is (one of the things that some have posited set humans apart from the animals). Once they knew what morality was, and that they were beholden to it as social creatures - they were able to be held accountable for their actions.
"Ignorance is bliss" should be the superscription at the head of the Genesis 2-3 story.
[quote=). Once they knew what morality was, and that they were beholden to it as social creatures - they were able to be held accountable for their actions.
"Ignorance is bliss" should be the superscription at the head of the Genesis 2-3 story. [/quote]
One more thing now that you've brought it up. They didn't know right from untill AFTER they are the fruit. So God punished them after they knew it was wrong to disobey him. Itsn't that called entrapment?
One more thing now that you've brought it up. They didn't know right from untill AFTER they are the fruit. So God punished them after they knew it was wrong to disobey him. Itsn't that called entrapment?
Well, that's the "set-up" theory I referred to, and it's one I used to subscribe to when I first wandered away from my faith. For the reason given above (I find it highly unlikely that a religious writer would impugn such a tactic to his god; the other alternative is that the story is true, and God really DID set them up - but I don't feel the first part of that sentence is true heh heh, that the story IS true) - I just don't buy the "entrapment" part. Would a powerful God REALLY need to set people up? It's not like the result of his "setup" was worship or anything like that. The humans actually became some troubling creatures.
I think he HAD to punish them - after all, he was a god of Justice. He had no choice. I mentioned that in my previous post, I think. Catch-22 for God.
According to the narrative, God had to keep them away from the tree of life, lest they eat and become like gods. He had unwittingly created creatures that were able to defy his Will, and this was dangerous. If they kept going, he would have some serious problems. The humans demonstrated this with the Tower of Babel, and the Flood. In the end, he had to constantly make concessions, or improvise- because those pesky humans were always thwarting his Will! Quite an achievment for a bunch of creatures made out of mud. Perhaps it was that divine spark he breathed into them, and the acquisition of knowledge from the tree that helped?
At any rate, Original Sin was a much later concept - so the punishments were really not THAT harsh. Just basic human facts of life, in the end. There are lots of ways of looking at the stories, and I just think the "setup" theory is anti-religion 101, and not entirely founded on what the text says. There are better ways of enjoying the story for what it is, without painting God as a tyrant - and this is coming from an Atheist, which I am.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Itsn't that called entrapment? 
