God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[Statler Waldorf]

There are no non-man-made definitions of justice of which I'm aware. if there's a God-made one, we're incapable of comprehending it, apparently. Not being a superhuman, I'm limited to human conceptions. If there's no way to reasonably judge anything God does as wrong, there's no way to reasonbly judge anything God does as right, either; and no way to meaningfully say 'God is good'.

Sure there is, God is just and God is good because God is the ultimate standard of justice and goodness. That’s a truth we reason from not reason to. Be honest, if God exists does it really matter whether or not his creatures think He is just or not? Are they not fallible?

It took us thousands of years to figure out we shouldn't own each other. No person should think of another person as their personal property. Again, if we can't judge God to be bad, we can't judge him to be good, either. If none of our powers of judgment can be applied to God, maybe we should stop making any claims about him at all.

Why would we be in a position to judge God in the first place? God is good because He is the ultimate standard of goodness, I start there not end there. The 9th Chapter of Romans explains this beautifully, “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”

So you consider yourself to be qualified to judge God's character?

Not at all, that’s my whole point. I start with the truth that God’s character is good and just and reason from that truth because I know that I am not in a position to judge anything concerning God.

The plain reading is that if they ate of the Tree of Life, they would live forever. Have you not read this story?

And the plain reading is that Adam and Eve knew that they ought to obey God’s commandments prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Adam and his wife were both naked and they felt no shame. Genesis 2:25

Yup.

That's your ad hoc explanation, yes.

No, that’s a fair-minded interpretation.

They may have. But you can 'maybe' anything. You're trying to explain how the text may mean something different from what it seems to mean, something that fits your own beliefs on the matter. I don't have any particular reason to think your interpretation is correct.

No, I am saying that it seems to me this. The text is perfectly explainable; if it were really as nonsensical as you claim then there’d be no way for me to explain it as easily as I can.

In the story she says God ordered them not to eat it and that it would kill them in the same breath. If she first said "God said not to do it', then the serpent said 'it's okay', then she said 'but God said we'll die if we eat it' that would be the scenario that fits what you've just said, but she said (paraphrasing slightly) that God said not to eat it and we'll die if we do.

“He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” – Genesis 3:1-7 ESV


He starts off by questioning what God actually told her, and then he says that what God said is not actually true, so you were right about that part.

You'd be undermining any argument you might make that the only reason they hesitate to commit adultery is because they know it's morally wrong. Which is the argument you're making about Eve, that the ONLY reason she's have to hesitate before eating the fruit is that she knew it was morally wrong.

No that’s not what I am saying. She may have had several reasons for not eating the fruit, the ultimate reason being that God told her not to do it though.

So they were resting on God's perfect and ultimate authority when they decided to eat the fruit. Your argument is that their moral judgement decayed AFTER they ate it. Before they ate it, according to you, they had great moral judgement.

As long as they were listening to God they had perfect moral judgment, once she listened to Satan obviously that changed. You’re starting to get into some fairly advanced theological topics concerning the imputation of sin, Adam’s will and so forth. I do not mind discussing them but they are not very pertinent to the original topic of injustice in the story.

But they had it when they decided to eat the fruit. Look, I'm not the one saying they had great moral judgement before they noshed on the wrong food item. To me, the story indicates they didn't know right from wrong, they were moral infants until they ate the fruit. To me, it's just a plot hole in the story. You're the one who seems to be compelled by your a priori committment to it being true, making sense, and making God look good to fill that hole with something that accomplishes what you're cmmitted to believe. But your plot hole filler has it's own plot hole.

As I pointed out already, I do not need “God to look good”; even if what you were saying were true He’d still be good. I am somewhat agreeing with you even, Adam and Eve were like children, all they had was to look to God in order to know what was right and wrong and that changed once they ate the fruit. My point is that the previous setup was a far more desirable one for them. We’d all be better off if we still had that direct communion with God.

Everybody tells their just so stories like they really happened

I thought you said that the writer of Genesis did not intend for anyone to take it literally? Now he did?

Best guess: Because he was a Jew.

You have to concede that since Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and God incarnate and since Jesus believed Genesis was literal history therefore Christians ought to believe it is literal history as well right? Would it really make since for a Christian to say, “Yes, Jesus was the Son of God and God incarnate but he was wrong about Genesis!”?

Best guess: Because they were Jews or because Jesus did.

They were far more knowledgeable of the scriptures than either of us, and they were reading them in their original language and they had no problem believing that they were written as a literal historical account.

I've not noted any particular connection between enlightenment and accurate judgment of historicity.

Well you were saying that I was interpreting the story differently than the original author intended and I am pointing out that I am interpreting it the same way as Jesus did so I think I am on the right track.

In my OP, I asked Christians to explain how this charade qualifies as justice. A week later, I get one Christian insisting that it's just because it just is, and another one gishgalloping his way to the brainless conclusion that anything God does is just, so it can't be injustice.

It’s not our fault that the OP was nonsensical. We’re just pointing it out to you.

What a colossal cosmic cunt.

According to whom? You? That’s funny that you think your opinion of God matters.

So glad the monster you believe in is made-up.

You and I both know that He’s not.