Why would a perfect garden need anyone to look after it?

[walterpthefirst]

Interesting ideas, mwc.

 

 

There's so little information about the garden Eden that questions about it often oblige us to assume, to suppose and to imagine.  But I would submit that there is another, better way to discover more about the place and why Adam was supposedly put there to work it and tend to it.  That would be to look at god's ulterior motive for putting him there.

 

Romans 11 : 32 provides the key for doing that.  

 

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

What better way of making innocent people (Adam and Eve) guilty of disobedience than to create them unable to obey a simple command not to eat from a certain tree?  Sure, create them with free will, but then bind that free will in such a way that they will inevitably disobey you. 

 

Also, hang the fate of the entire world on their shoulders, so that when they do disobey you, the whole world (and every succeeding generation of humans) becomes tarred with the same brush.  That way everyone becomes guilty of disobedience and you obtain the result you wanted all along - everyone inevitably becomes disobedient and now needs your mercy to avoid hell.  You can now have mercy on everyone through the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

So there's god's ulterior motive for putting Adam in Eden.  Tending the garden was just a cover story.  The real reason was to entrap him with a command he couldn't keep.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[mwc]

43 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Interesting ideas, mwc.

 

 

There's so little information about the garden Eden that questions about it often oblige us to assume, to suppose and to imagine.  But I would submit that there is another, better way to discover more about the place and why Adam was supposedly put there to work it and tend to it.  That would be to look at god's ulterior motive for putting him there.

 

Romans 11 : 32 provides the key for doing that.  

 

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

What better way of making innocent people (Adam and Eve) guilty of disobedience than to create them unable to obey a simple command not to eat from a certain tree?  Sure, create them with free will, but then bind that free will in such a way that they will inevitably disobey you. 

 

Also, hang the fate of the entire world on their shoulders, so that when they do disobey you, the whole world (and every succeeding generation of humans) becomes tarred with the same brush.  That way everyone becomes guilty of disobedience and you obtain the result you wanted all along - everyone inevitably becomes disobedient and now needs your mercy to avoid hell.  You can now have mercy on everyone through the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

So there's god's ulterior motive for putting Adam in Eden.  Tending the garden was just a cover story.  The real reason was to entrap him with a command he couldn't keep.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

     Fair enough but never forget there can be always be more than one reason.  In this case why not have someone take care of your stuff before you spring the trap?

 

     And keeping with your theme of everything being literally true we *are* told that Adam was placed to tend the garden so it must be true and can't be dismissed.

 

          mwc

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

 

That sounds similar to a psychiatric (or criminal) condition that occurs occasionally with Parents, and other caretakers.  A child, or other person is made, and/or kept sick and dependent upon the parent or caretaker.  Sometimes the parent is so psychologically needy that they have an extreme need to be needed.  And at times a person is kept sick so the caretaker continues to have a job, or a parent continues to get government assistance (monetary) for a sick child.   The condition is called "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy".

 

It is a set up to take care of the "parent's" needs----not the "childs" needs.

 

Is it possible the Abrahamic God was sicker and more insecure than the people he created??   Like some other things in the Bible, it simply does not add up to the wellbeing of human beings, or a loving god.

[walterpthefirst]

On 6/22/2024 at 12:14 PM, mwc said:

     Fair enough but never forget there can be always be more than one reason.  In this case why not have someone take care of your stuff before you spring the trap?

 

     And keeping with your theme of everything being literally true we *are* told that Adam was placed to tend the garden so it must be true and can't be dismissed.

 

          mwc

 

 

An interesting insight, mwc.

 

The concept of god's trap still works and the truth of the verse where scripture says that Adam was put there to tend the garden is also satisfied.

 

Yes, I can see that.  Thanks very much.

 

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

19 hours ago, Weezer said:

That sounds similar to a psychiatric (or criminal) condition that occurs occasionally with Parents, and other caretakers.  A child, or other person is made, and/or kept sick and dependent upon the parent or caretaker.  Sometimes the parent is so psychologically needy that they have an extreme need to be needed.  And at times a person is kept sick so the caretaker continues to have a job, or a parent continues to get government assistance (monetary) for a sick child.   The condition is called "Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy".

 

It is a set up to take care of the "parent's" needs----not the "childs" needs.

 

Is it possible the Abrahamic God was sicker and more insecure than the people he created??   Like some other things in the Bible, it simply does not add up to the wellbeing of human beings, or a loving god.

 

 

I'd heard of the condition but didn't know how it worked, Weezer.

 

Thanks very much for your professional insight here.

 

As far as I can tell the apostle Paul has no problem calling god's actions towards Adam and Eve, 'good'.  He also seemed to have genuinely believed that god was being 'loving' too.  Many Christians would probably take the same position - that whatever god plans, does or commands is good and loving, no matter what.

 

But this seems like a disconnect of incredible proportions to me.  I tried asking Edgarcito if he thought god was being good and loving last week, but he completely ignored my questions.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So who is doing the evil here, Ed?

Do you think it was good of god for him to deny us our free will and choose who will go to heaven and who won't?

Do you think it was good of god to entrap his two children this way, by giving them a command they couldn't obey?

Do you think it was good of god to allow Satan to harm them by tempting them to disobey him?

Do you think it was good of god to leave Satan unchained, when the other fallen angels were chained up?

Do you think it was good of god to knowingly spoil and ruin his own 'very good' creation as part of his plan?

Do you think it was good of god to not explain to Adam and Eve what death was?

Do you think it was good of god to add his curses to the punishment (death) he said he would give them?

Do you think it was good of god to inflict pain, disease and death on generations on unborn people for what Adam did?

Do you think it was good of god to deny Adam and Eve the possibility of reconciliation with him during their lifetimes?

Do you think it was good of god to burn billions of people in hell forever so that others can dwell in heaven forever?

Do you think all of these things, which can only be laid at god's door (the buck stops here) are good?

Really?

You're happy to worship a god who would do all of this 'good'?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I suppose you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, right?

 

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

One, that God violated Adam and Eve's free will and two, that God does this on purpose. 

How did Satan enter the garden? 

Why is the knowledge of [good and] evil there?
And if God is alive even through periods of death and decay, how are His actions not equally valid despite the various time frames?

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

Edgarcito's next question was, why was the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden?

 

 

The answer is...

 

 

To convert Adam and Eve from innocence to guilt and so make the whole human race guilty.  Once they had eaten the forbidden fruit they lost their innocence.  This loss displayed itself in three ways.  First, the realization that they were naked.  Second, being afraid of god.  Third, their realization that they had disobeyed god by trying to hand the blame on to some one else.   

 

Adam blamed Eve and she blamed the serpent.  This is the behaviour of people who know and understand that they are guilty of disobedience.  Innocent people do not need to blame others for their actions.  They have done no wrong.

 

So the tree was there in Eden for that specific purpose.  To act as the means by which god could get them to disobey him.  His one command and one penalty are tied to its existence.  If it had been absent from Eden, then how is god going to be able to have mercy upon the whole world?  Nobody would be guilty of anything.  Nobody would be in need of mercy because there had been no act of disobedience.   Without that tree there would have been no command for them to break and no penalty to be inflicted upon Adam and Eve.

 

Once that tree had served its purpose it disappears from scripture, never to be heard of again.  This is how god carries out his plans.  Once a given thing has served its purpose he sweeps it away forever.  Examples of this are the Law of Moses, the Gifts of the Spirit and the whole of the first Creation.

 

The Law was finished forever when Jesus died on the cross, with the tearing of the temple curtain being the sign.

The Gifts of the Spirit will pass away (1 Corinthians 13 : 8 - 10) when their purpose has been served.

The first heaven and first earth will pass away and be replaced by a new creation. (Revelation 21 : 1)

 

So, if god had truly intended Adam and Eve to live forever in Eden, he wouldn't have placed the tree of the knowledge of god and evil within their reach.  It wouldn't have existed at all.  By putting it there he placed temptation in their way and god also allowed the tempter into the garden to do what god wanted all along - to make them (and everyone else) guilty and in need of forgiveness and mercy.

 

In the light of Romans 11 : 32 no viable argument can be made that the presence of the forbidden tree in Eden was some kind of test or some means of teaching Adam and Eve a moral lesson.  It's purpose was to entrap and snare them.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

One, that God violated Adam and Eve's free will and two, that God does this on purpose. 

How did Satan enter the garden? 

Why is the knowledge of [good and] evil there?
And if God is alive even through periods of death and decay, how are His actions not equally valid despite the various time frames?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The key to answering your last question Edgarcito can be found in Acts 10 : 9 - 16

 

 

9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 

10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 

11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 

12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 

13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”

14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”

15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”

16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

 

 

The answer can be found by you answering this question.  It is for you to turn the key and understand, Ed.

 

Peter thought that god was commanding him to do something invalid under the Law of Moses - to eat unclean food.

 

But god cannot do anything invalid or command anyone to anything that would invalidate one of his laws.

 

So, why, at that time, was Peter wrong about the validity of the Law?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

To convert Adam and Eve from innocence to guilt and so make the whole human race guilty.  Once they had eaten the forbidden fruit they lost their innocence.

 

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

~Genesis 3 (emphasis added)

 

While I agree with your overall point, Walt, I have to take issue with this particular statement.  I contend, based on the scripture referenced above, that Adam and Eve were never innocent.  They were never "perfect."  In this passage, we see no less than three clear and distinct sins being committed before any fruit was ever eaten.

 

The first "sin" we see is deception.  In verse 3, Eve tells the serpent that god said they could not eat the fruit, which was true according to scripture.  However, Eve goes a step further and claims that god also commanded that they were not even allowed to touch the fruit, or else they would die.  However, nowhere in scripture does god give any commandment about touching the fruit.  This means that, at some point, this lie was introduced into the narrative by someone else.  We know that god never said it, according to the narrative; and the serpent had no reason to add this lie into his dissertation.  Thus, it must have come from one of the two presumably "innocent" people, Adam or Eve.  It is possible that Eve simply made up the lie on the spot.  It was certainly spoken by her in that moment.  But may also not have originated with her.  god never spoke directly to Eve; he only ever spoke directly to Adam.  So, all of the information Eve had, she got second-hand from Adam.  He may have added the lie in, as a means of emphasizing the gravity of the fruit situation (or exaggerating his own sense of self-importance, as men sometimes do).  Either way, somebody other than god or the serpent, came up with this lie.

 

But how was that possible, if they only two people who could have invented the lie were incapable of lying?

 

Secondly, in verse 5, we see Eve yielding to the sin of Pride.  The temptation to become like gods appealed to her.  But it should not have been able to, if she were innocent.  She should not have been able to feel, and certainly not act upon, a desire to become more than she was created to be.  That temptation should never have been effective.  Yet it was.  And this desire was strong enough to motivate her toward disobedience.  This clearly indicates that she already had the "nature of sin" within her. 

 

But there is something more subtle going on here--something that might easily get overlooked in the rush to blame her for her sinful nature.  The fact that Eve would be tempted by the suggestion that she could become more than she was intended to be suggests that Eve must have felt herself incomplete, inferior, less than she desired.  In order for the temptation to become more/greater/better to be effective against Eve, she must have begun from a point of feeling less/smaller/worse.  But why would a "perfect" person have feelings of insecurity and inferiority? 

 

If Eve had felt complete within herself, why the need to lie?  Why the desire to become something more?

 

The third "sin" we see comes in verse 6.  Here, Eve sees the fruit as something "to be desired."  Yet god had forbidden it.  Now, obviously, the act of eating it was disobedience.  But the real "sin" in this verse is that Eve desired something that god had forbidden.  However, if she were "innocent" and god himself even called her "good" then how could she have had the capacity to desire something god had forbidden?  Such a desire should not have been present anywhere in her being prior to eating the fruit if, as scripture suggests, sin entered the world through that act of disobedience.  Yet, here she is: lying, being prideful, feeling inferior, and already desiring what god had forbidden.  In this passage, Eve certainly seems to be a pretty sinful individual.  But, up until this point in the narrative, the fruit is still hanging there on the tree branch.  Not a single bite has been taken.  Eve hasn't even touched it yet; so not only is she still within compliance of god's commands, she's also still within compliance of her own lie concerning god's commands.

 

It's almost as if she were created with the nature of sin already present.  

 

This leads me to the question that has been nagging me since the beginning of this thread.  I haven't brought it up yet; because I wanted to make sure you and Ed had ample room for what turned out to be a surprisingly civil conversation between the two of you.  (Kudos and what not).  The question is this:

 

If Adam and Eve were neither "perfect" nor "innocent" then what does The Fall actually signify?  What does The Fall represent?  It cannot represent humanity falling from innocence to guilt; because humanity was never innocent to begin with.  It also cannot represent humanity falling from perfection into sin, since humanity was never perfect to begin with.  What is the purpose of The Fall, if the only thing achieved was humanity falling from a state of imperfection to a state of being slightly more imperfect?  From a state of sinfulness to a state of slightly more sinfulness?

 

I think you're on the cusp of answering the question for yourself through your own thought process; so, for now, I will simply leave the question there and not attempt to provide my own answer for it.

[walterpthefirst]

Guess what, Prof?   I agree with what you say about perfection and innocence.

 

Here's where I dropped the requirement for there to be perfection in Eden.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted June 11

Posted 8 hours ago

  On 6/11/2024 at 1:03 AM, walterpthefirst said:

  8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you could explain what Genesis 2 : 15 means, Ed?

 

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

 

Edgarcito...

We are currently stuck on your claim of a perfect garden.  Could you please defend your words given you are devil’s advocating… thx

 

 

Me...

If you're still stuck on my claim of perfection in Eden Ed, then I can unstick you.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I haven't cut and pasted all of that post Prof, but you can go back and see that since June 11 I haven't been taking the line that anything of anyone in Eden (except god) was perfect.

 

That settles the issue of Edenic perfection.  I don't need it for my argument to work.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

21 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Guess what, Prof?   I agree with what you say about perfection and innocence.

 

Here's where I dropped the requirement for there to be perfection in Eden.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Posted June 11

Posted 8 hours ago

  On 6/11/2024 at 1:03 AM, walterpthefirst said:

  8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps you could explain what Genesis 2 : 15 means, Ed?

 

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

 

Edgarcito...

We are currently stuck on your claim of a perfect garden.  Could you please defend your words given you are devil’s advocating… thx

 

 

Me...

If you're still stuck on my claim of perfection in Eden Ed, then I can unstick you.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I haven't cut and pasted all of that post Prof, but you can go back and see that since June 11 I haven't been taking the line that anything of anyone in Eden (except god) was perfect.

 

That settles the issue of Edenic perfection.  I don't need it for my argument to work.

 

 

Yes.  I was aware of that.  However, it is not just perfection that is in question here.  Innocence is, as well.  I covered both in order to lead to the final question: What is the significance of The Fall, if humanity was never perfect or innocent to begin with?

[walterpthefirst]

So what about your second point?  That neither Adam nor Eve were innocent?

 

I accept and agree with all that you say.

 

Why?  Because, I'm my own clumsy and faltering way, I haven't made it sufficiently clear in this thread just what Adam and Eve were innocent of and what they were guilty of.  I thought I had, but clearly I haven't.  So I'll try and do so here, with a linked sequence of points.  Please get back to me if you don't think it works or if you need something explaining further.

 

 

1.  God wanted them and the rest of the human race to be guilty of disobedience, as per Romans 11 : 32.

2.  He wanted this so that everyone would need his forgiveness and mercy.

3   This mercy and forgiveness was to be given only through the blood of Jesus.

4.  God gave Adam a command not to eat any of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 

5.  (This is the kicker!)  

Up until Adam and Eve actually disobeyed god and ate the fruit they were innocent of breaking that command.

 

6. Once they did that they were guilty of disobedience.

7.  Ultimately the whole human race inherited their status of guilty and so the whole world was in need of mercy.

 

 

Do you see how it works?  Their innocence pertains only to how long and how well they kept god's one commandment.  How they conducted themselves in any other way is irrelevant to the keeping of the command.  They could have lived in Eden for 10,000 years or for just 10 days, but so long as they kept god's command they were innocent of wrongdoing.

 

They key point here Prof is that their innocence and guilt were tied only to their upkeep of the command.  Nothing else mattered.  What they said, how they said it and who they said it to is irrelevant.  What they thought and what they felt, ditto.  God was holding them to one and only one rule - obedience to his command about the forbidden tree.  Their innocence and guilt hinged only on that issue.  Nothing else. 

 

I hope this all make sense to you.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  I was aware of that.  However, it is not just perfection that is in question here.  Innocence is, as well.  I covered both in order to lead to the final question: What is the significance of The Fall, if humanity was never perfect or innocent to begin with?

 

The significance of the Fall?

 

 

The Fall was just a means to an end, Prof.  God's end.

 

To get everyone who would ever live (Eve was the mother of all the living) to be absolutely reliant on his mercy.  He, as judge of the world, only has the power to show mercy to those who are guilty.  He has no power over innocent people.  

 

And here, when we say 'innocent' we don't mean pure of heart and nor do we mean perfect in any way.  No we only mean innocent of upholding god's command up until the time it was broken.  After that watershed moment, ALL would become guilty.

 

Does that help?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The significance of the Fall?

 

 

The Fall was just a means to an end, Prof.  God's end.

No.  The Fall was not necessary to achieving god's end.  god could have achieved his end without any means at all.  The Fall was intended to make humanity aware that god had created them sinful, imperfect, and disobedient.  Prior to that, they were innocent of that knowledge (good and evil).

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  The Fall was not necessary to achieving god's means.  god could have achieved his end without any means at all.  The Fall was intended to make humanity aware that god had created them sinful, imperfect, and disobedient.  Prior to that, they were innocent of that knowledge (good and evil).

 

Hmmm... I dunno.

 

 

I can't quite square your 'created disobedient' angle with scripture, Prof. 

 

If humanity had been created disobedient then there would have been no need to place the forbidden tree as bait in the garden.  Nor any need to allow Satan in to do his tempting.  Those two things only become necessary if humanity starts off innocent of keeping god's command and then becomes guilty by breaking it through disobedience.  I therefore submit that Romans 11 : 32 makes no sense if god had created the human race already guilty of disobedience.

 

By starting humanity off as innocent of disobeying one command and then converting to them to guilty by making them break it, god can show the quality of his 'justice' being done.  He is the truly innocent and aggrieved party who was sinned against.  Whereas humanity are the guilty transgressors who are now in need of his mercy because of what they have DONE not because of how they were made.

 

This agrees with Revelation 20 : 12.

 

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

 

The books that are opened before god on judgment day are faithful records of humanity's deeds and everyone is judged on the basis of what is written in them.  But if humanity were created guilty then these books become superfluous.  Humanity is guilty on the basis of its very existence, not its deeds.

 

I'm still playing Devil's Advocate, of course.

 

 

Otherwise, I can see and agree that the Fall would be useful to god in making humanity aware of its disobedience, by  fostering feelings of shame and fear.  And your last point stands too.  In terms of knowledge, Adam and Eve would have been innocent, not understanding good and evil until after they broke god's command.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

If humanity had been created disobedient then there would have been no need to place the forbidden tree as bait in the garden.  Nor any need to allow Satan in to do his tempting.  Those two things only become necessary if humanity starts off innocent of keeping god's command and then becomes guilty by breaking it through disobedience.

Or, these were merely stage props in a screenplay that had already been written, edited, directed and put into production.

 

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I therefore submit that Romans 11 : 32 makes no sense if god had created the human race already guilty of disobedience.

It makes even better sense, if the people upon whom god wanted to have mercy needed to first become convinced that they were sinful, imperfect, and disobedient.  The sleight of hand being displayed here is in convincing them that they are to blame for being in such a state, rather than recognizing that god had created them as such from the beginning.

 

19 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Whereas humanity are the guilty transgressors who are now in need of his mercy because of what they have DONE not because of how they were made.

Splitting hairs; but my point really boils down to "they did what they did because of how they were made."  So, we agree on the motive; but maybe not the method.

 

22 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Humanity is guilty on the basis of its very existence, not its deeds.

Bingo.  But god cannot/will not take the responsibility for having created them sinful.  Therefore, The Fall.  So that they would become aware of their own iniquity and take the blame.  Even under god's so-called "justice" a man is guilty for merely existing, because of Original Sin; but let that man accept jesus and he is completely absolved of rape, murder, torture, theft, even voting Republican.  god is clearly not concerned about what humanity does, so long as we don't exist without kowtowing.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Or, these were merely stage props in a screenplay that had already been written, edited, directed and put into production.

 

According to scripture, how much of the screenplay has been written beforehand? 

 

We know from Ephesian 1 : 4 that...  'he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.'  That's the cast being divided into goodies and baddies without their knowledge or choice.  But do we know any more than that?  If not, then how much of what you propose is speculation, Prof?

 

Don't get me wrong here.  It's a possibility.  But if I'm playing Devil's Advocate, then I have to stick to the script.

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

It makes even better sense, if the people upon whom god wanted to have mercy needed to first become convinced that they were sinful, imperfect, and disobedient.  The sleight of hand being displayed here is in convincing them that they are to blame for being in such a state, rather than recognizing that god had created them as such from the beginning.

 

I'm not sure about this.  Please see my comments below about splitting hairs.

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Splitting hairs; but my point really boils down to "they did what they did because of how they were made."  So, we agree on the motive; but maybe not the method.

 

And we also seem to disagree on the extent to which things were pre-arranged.  You err on the side of disobedient from get go, arranged before time's beginning.   Whereas I err on the side converted from innocent of wrongdoing to guilty of wrongdoing, happening in Eden.  We are in general agreement, but still discussing the details. 

 

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Bingo.  But god cannot/will not take the responsibility for having created them sinful.  Therefore, The Fall.  So that they would become aware of their own iniquity and take the blame.  Even under god's so-called "justice" a man is guilty for merely existing, because of Original Sin; but let that man accept jesus and he is completely absolved of rape, murder, torture, theft, even voting Republican.  god is clearly not concerned about what humanity does, so long as we don't exist without kowtowing.

 

I agree about the kowtowing and about absolution, Prof.

 

Still stuck on those details.  But please keep me thinking by testing the argument.

 

 

Thank you,

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

But do we know any more than that?  If not, then how much of what you propose is speculation, Prof?

We know from Genesis 3 that, prior to eating the fruit, Eve:

 

1.) was capable of lying; and did so

2.) was capable of feeling both pride and inferiority; and acting upon both

3.) was capable of desiring what god had forbidden; and acting upon that desire

 

None of my propositions are speculative.  They are all in plain text in Genesis 3.

 

My question for you is this: How did the freshly minted Eve, created in the very image of god himself, have the capacity for deceit, pride, inferiority, and sinful desire? 

 

No other outside force besides god's creativity had acted upon her prior to eating the fruit.  So, precisely as we see her in Genesis 3 is precisely how she had been created by god.  Yet she had the capacity for "sin" already.  If god did not create her that way, then how did she become that way?

[walterpthefirst]

Prof,

 

Before I address what you've just written about Eve, let me just show you something that your words just showed me.  Let's replace Eve with Satan and talk about what happened in heaven, not Eden.  I'm going to copy your format, but replace Eve with Satan.  The similarity is striking.

 

 

We know from elsewhere in the bible that, prior to being cast out of heaven, Satan:

 

1.) was capable of lying; and did so

2.) was capable of feeling both pride and inferiority; and acting upon both

3.) was capable of desiring what god had forbidden; and acting upon that desire

 

None of my propositions are speculative.  They are all in plain text in the bible..

 

My question for you is this: How did the freshly minted Satan, created as one of the Sons of God himself, have the capacity for deceit, pride, inferiority, and sinful desire? 

 

No other outside force besides god's creativity had acted upon him prior to him rebelling.  So, precisely as we see him in scripture is precisely how he had been created by god.  Yet he had the capacity for "sin" already.  If god did not create him that way, then how did he become that way?

 

 

Now, according to scripture god has free will and also knows good and evil.  Therefore, surely he would have the same capacity for deceit, pride, inferiority and sinful desire that Eve and Satan had - but never choses to act upon those traits?  Only ever choosing to be and to do good.  That is the mainstream Christian view of god.

 

Taking that view, Satan's evil and Eve's evil are not the product of programming by god before creation but are instead the product of their free-willed choices, made in real time after creation.

 

But how do we square that with the ample biblical evidence that god does not respect the free will of his creations?

 

Esau was condemned to hell before he was even born and nothing he could do during his life could change what god had ordained for him.  His freewill amounted to nothing in the face of god's predestination.  How is that respecting free will?  We also know from scripture that god has already selected who will burn and who will not.  Is that respecting our free will?

 

In the face of so much biblical evidence for predestination I am driven to conclude that neither Satan nor Eve made free-willed choices to rebel against god.  That god ordained their acts of rebellion and bound their wills accordingly.  Romans 11 : 32 tells us that he has done this for the entire human race, to make us guilty without giving us the right to choose.   

 

The bible also tells us that god has bound his chosen people, the Jews (whom he claims to love) into a state of disobedience so that they CANNOT accept Jesus as their messiah, saviour and lord.  Their free will has been violated too.

 

2 Corinthians 3 : 13 - 17

 

 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 

14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 

15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 

16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 

17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

 

 

It's there in b&w, Prof.  The Israelites didn't choose of their own free will to make their minds dull.  Their minds were made dull for them, by god.  And this dullness of mind prevents them from understanding that the Law of Moses was fulfilled in Jesus.  God did this to them.  They didn't chose this outcome.

 

Verses 16 and 17 confirm that the Israelites are being held in bondage by god.  Whenever one of them turns to Jesus the veil that god put over their hearts and minds is taken away.  They move from out of their god-induced bondage and into freedom.  According to Ephesians 1 : 4 that act of turning isn't their free will at work either.  Their names of all those who will become holy and blameless before god (Jew or gentile) were chosen in him before the creation of the world.  Also in b&w.

 

So, where is there any room in the equation for the free will of humans?  Nowhere, according to the bible.  On the basis of this reasoning, supported by scripture, I am being brought round to your line of argument, Prof.

 

For the moment I'm holding to my argument from Romans 11 :32, that Adam and Eve were changed from innocent of law-breaking to guilty of it, so that god could have mercy on the entire human race.  But I now believe that this was a sham and a façade used by god to justify himself, to make them utterly dependent upon his 'good' will and to subdue them through shaming and punishment.

 

 

Sorry for the length of this post.  I imagine that you can see that I've been thinking on the run as I typed it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

17 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We know from Genesis 3 that, prior to eating the fruit, Eve:

 

1.) was capable of lying; and did so

2.) was capable of feeling both pride and inferiority; and acting upon both

3.) was capable of desiring what god had forbidden; and acting upon that desire

 

None of my propositions are speculative.  They are all in plain text in Genesis 3.

 

My question for you is this: How did the freshly minted Eve, created in the very image of god himself, have the capacity for deceit, pride, inferiority, and sinful desire? 

 

No other outside force besides god's creativity had acted upon her prior to eating the fruit.  So, precisely as we see her in Genesis 3 is precisely how she had been created by god.  Yet she had the capacity for "sin" already.  If god did not create her that way, then how did she become that way?

 

Truth be told, I'm still mulling this over, Prof.  

 

 

Either, god created Eve this way, with the capacity for deceit, pride, inferiority and sinful desire or those things are latent within all free willed beings, just waiting to be discovered as they exercise their free will to obey and conform or to disobey and go their own way.

 

As I see it, the text allows either option.  

 

But where the text clashes with the second option is the clearly defined role of predestination in god's plan.  If he is the one who decides who will burn and who won't, then why would he have any respect for the free will of the two orders of beings he created - humans and angels?

 

I've already established that he cannot be judged by anyone and so cannot be held to account for his actions.  Therefore, knowing this he has a free hand to create humans and angels any way he likes.  In Eve's case that would be with deceit and those other traits already hardwired into her.  In Satan's case, with similar traits hardwired into him.

 

If we take this line then their disobedient actions aren't the result of them exercising their free will, choosing to rebel and so discovering the evil within themselves.  Instead their inner evil was put there by god, for his own ends.

 

Which means that my argument in this thread needs adjustment. 

 

Instead of Romans 11 : 32 meaning that god overrode human free will to make everyone guilty through Adam and Eve it actually means that we are as god made us and our capacity for evil was hardwired into us by him, so that we would become guilty of disobedience.  He desires to have mercy upon us so much that the pot-maker deliberately fashioned every pot to be faulty.  So that he could have mercy on his defective pots and correct the faults he put into them by the blood of Jesus.

 

Romans 9 : 19 - 21

 

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 

20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

 

Indeed! 

Who can talk back to god when there is no greater authority by which he can be held accountable for how he made us?  He is the ultimate power, unrestrained by any checks and balances, free to do as he wills and to call what he wills good, just and loving.  Who can possibly dispute him?  

 

The more this goes on the crazier it gets and the more it seems that we are at the mercy of a narcissistic sadist!

 

Your thoughts, Prof?

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Either, god created Eve this way, with the capacity for deceit, pride, inferiority and sinful desire or those things are latent within all free willed beings, just waiting to be discovered as they exercise their free will to obey and conform or to disobey and go their own way.

If we accept that those things are latent within all free willed beings, then we have to account for how those things came to exist within all free willed beings.  If we also accept that god created all that exists, then...

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If we accept that those things are latent within all free willed beings, then we have to account for how those things came to exist within all free willed beings.  If we also accept that god created all that exists, then...

 

That latency could be the price all free willed beings have to pay to possess and exercise their free will.

 

The risk is that these beings could activate the potential for evil within themselves when they make a free choice.  So yes, god as the creator might well imbue angels and humans with the potential to do evil.  If so, then the ultimate responsibility for the creation of evil is his.  But perhaps there cannot be free will without the risk of there being evil?

 

Scripture tells us that god knows evil as well as good - but never chooses to do evil.  So he carries within himself the potential to do and be evil, just as much as any angel or human.  But is inactivated evil the same as activated evil?  If god is all knowing then he also knows all evil.  He therefore has infinite potential to do and be infinitely evil.  

 

But I would submit that an inactivated infinite potential amounts to nothing - because nothing ever comes of it.  Therefore no blame, fault or responsibility can be laid at god's door for possessing an inactivated potential for evil.

 

Only when that potential is realised and actualised, in the creator or in his creations, can any fault, blame or responsibility be laid at that being's door.

 

Scripture also tells us that angels like Gabriel, Michael and many others did not actualise their god-given inner potential for evil.  There was war in heaven precisely because the angels had the capacity to make free-willed choices.  Therefore, because they have free will, each angel is personally responsible for the decisions they make.  The same with humans.

 

This scenario does not absolve god of responsibility for creating angels and humans with the potential for evil.  But it does absolve him of responsibility for the activation of the potential for evil within angels and humans. 

 

Prof, please note that I do not actually subscribe to this line of argument.  It requires that nothing god does is ever evil and I have cited far too much scriptural evidence of his evil-doing in this thread to hold to that line.  The bible shows that god has activated his potential for evil.  In this thread the overriding of human free will being under the spotlight.

 

I therefore present the above argument, simply to test it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The first question that comes to mind in response to the idea of inactivated evil is "How could Eve have lied prior to 'activating' her latent evil?"  So long as the fruit was still attached to the limb, Eve should not have been able to do anything that we would consider evil or sinful.  Yet she did.  We would also inevitably have to question whether her lie, itself, was freely chosen or preprogrammed to be told.  Given the evidence of Genesis 3, I lean toward the idea that god created her actively evil, and only used the Tree as a pretense for convincing humanity that it is our own fault (thus necessitating his mercy).

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The first question that comes to mind in response to the idea of inactivated evil is "How could Eve have lied prior to 'activating' her latent evil?"  So long as the fruit was still attached to the limb, Eve should not have been able to do anything that we would consider evil or sinful.  Yet she did.  We would also inevitably have to question whether her lie, itself, was freely chosen or preprogrammed to be told.  Given the evidence of Genesis 3, I lean toward the idea that god created her actively evil, and only used the Tree as a pretense for convincing humanity that it is our own fault (thus necessitating his mercy).

 

 

Oh I agree that the forbidden tree was a pretence, Prof.

 

I've already used the words sham and façade recently, so they agree nicely with pretence.  Employing the inactivated evil argument, the knowledge of evil in Eden didn't reside in the tree or in its fruit.  Instead the potential knowledge of evil resided in an unexpressed form within Adam and Eve, by god's deliberate design.

 

So that solves the question and problem that you raised. 

 

The moment Eve lied in reply to Satan's question was the moment she actualised her potential for evil. 

 

I submit that Satan, who had already undergone the same change earlier, in heaven, recognised the potential within her and sought to tease it out by asking her that question.  We humans can recognise certain things within others, things that aren't openly expressed but lie there, just under the surface.  How much more so would a powerful archangel be able to see what lay within the heart and mind of Eve?  That which had been put there by god.

 

But in all three cases, Adam and Eve and Satan, if god hadn't created them with the potential for evil latent within them there would have been no war in heaven, no expulsion of the rebel angels, no serpent to enter Eden and no reason for the first man and woman to question or disobey god.  Or if he hadn't programmed them to do his will, the same outcomes would have happened.  God would not have been able to have mercy on the guilty because there would have been no one guilty of anything.

 

So the buck definitely stops with god.  

 

Did Eve freely choose to lie or was she hardwired to do so by God?

 

We already know from scripture that god has violated the free will of his chosen people, the Jews.  So, if he's capable of doing that to the millions he claims to love, why wouldn't he be capable of doing it to just two people?  Planting the potential for evil within her as he fashioned her out of Adam's rib or programming her to lie - the outcome was the same and either way, god was ultimately responsible and to blame.

 

The buck stops with him.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This brings me back to my original question, which I will now answer.  What is the significance of The Fall?  Absolutely nothing.  There is absolutely no significance to The Fall whatsoever.  Humanity did not fall from innocence into sinfulness.  They were created sinful from the beginning.  Sin did not enter the world through disobedience.  Sin entered the world when god created it and put it here.  The Fall is simply god pulling the wool over our eyes to cover up his nefarious scheme to make us all guilty and justify his own need to be needed.  Nothing more than that.  The Fall is spiritually meaningless and insignificant. 

 

As you say, the buck don't go no further than this right here.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This brings me back to my original question, which I will now answer.  What is the significance of The Fall?  Absolutely nothing.  There is absolutely no significance to The Fall whatsoever.  Humanity did not fall from innocence into sinfulness.  They were created sinful from the beginning.  Sin did not enter the world through disobedience.  Sin entered the world when god created it and put it here.  The Fall is simply god pulling the wool over our eyes to cover up his nefarious scheme to make us all guilty and justify his own need to be needed.  Nothing more than that.  The Fall is spiritually meaningless and insignificant. 

 

As you say, the buck don't go no further than this right here.

What the serpent offered was more appealing as a function of her youth vs. a mature perspective.  To a previous point, why were some found righteous?