God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[ShaMan]

If they had no knowledge of good and evil (since they hadn't yet eaten of the tree of that fruit), then they shouldn't be held to account for the 'evil' act of disobeying god, since they had no knowledge that it was evil. Furthermore, all subsequent decedents should likewise not have to bear the penalty for a 'sin' since sin is committed with the knowledge of evil (which neither Adam nor Eve had prior to 'sinning' by eating the fruit).

[Statler Waldorf]

If they had no knowledge of good and evil (since they hadn't yet eaten of the tree of that fruit), then they shouldn't be held to account for the 'evil' act of disobeying god, since they had no knowledge that it was evil. Furthermore, all subsequent decedents should likewise not have to bear the penalty for a 'sin' since sin is committed with the knowledge of evil (which neither Adam nor Eve had prior to 'sinning' by eating the fruit).

That really wouldn’t matter even if it were true but the text never says that Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing good from evil prior to eating from “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”. They were given life by God prior to eating from “The Tree of Life” after all.

[Minimalist]

Why would it even pose a challenge if he (she,it) already knew what the outcome would be.

They've invented a god who cheats at solitaire, too!

[John V]

I'm sorry you're not following me, Stat.

So there was no death before Cain and Able's fiasco is that what you're saying? Or perhaps when god clothed them he had to kill an animal. Before that, before 'the fall', death is negligible yes?
So Adam and Eve had no idea the consequences of their actions. They were given free will (before the apple) with consequence of death, and yet had no idea what that consequence was?

A 3-year-old's grandparent could die without giving the child an understanding of death. OTOH, as a child matures, they will gain some understanding even without the experience.

[Violet]

Not if nobody dies.

[Tonus]

The serpent didn't order them to do anything. This completely undermines your theory that they were just used to obeying and so obeyed the serpent.

As I see it, he was urging her to do so by trying to convince her that the action would be beneficial and not harmful.

Likewise, Eve didn't tell Adam to eat the fruit. This is twice that you've read in orders that aren't there.

That strikes me as hair-splitting. Eve gave him the fruit and he ate it. I think it's reasonable to assume that he saw this as, at the very least, a suggestion. Since the account says she gave it to him, as opposed to offering it, I think it's more than just suggestion.

But if we take it at face value there are no distinct commands to eat. So we can consider an alternative interpretation: the serpent doesn't command Eve to eat; all he does is remove an obstacle. When he tells Eve that she won't be harmed by the action of eating, but will instead gain something, she doesn't appear to hesitate in taking action. When she offers the fruit to Adam, he takes it and eats from it. Like Eve, there appears to be no hesitation in his decision-making.

It appears as if the only reason they refused to take the fruit before was the fear of consequence. This allows us to rule out the notion that they were simply following commands by rote. But there is a curious lack of introspection by the pair before they eat-- Eve doesn't seem at all concerned over the accusation that god lied to her, nor do she or Adam appear to be worried that they might disappoint or upset god. They do not appear to feel any guilt over this action-- they hide because they suddenly realize that they're naked, not because they felt remorse over what they did.

Could it be that god's only interaction with them to that point was to program them via commands and not make any sort of emotional connection with them? Why would they feel a need to hide their nudity from god? They weren't hiding anything he hadn't seen before! Why didn't they express any guilt or remorse? Why didn't Eve immediately challenge the serpent's version of the story, and instead take it at face value? Why didn't Adam express any of these concerns? I wonder how much of this is due to it being a story that was assembled from many divergent tellings, and how much is from a writer whose text editor consistent of a chisel.

[Statler Waldorf]

Not if nobody dies.

Are you saying that you do not understand what death is because you have not experienced it?

---

That strikes me as hair-splitting. Eve gave him the fruit and he ate it. I think it's reasonable to assume that he saw this as, at the very least, a suggestion. Since the account says she gave it to him, as opposed to offering it, I think it's more than just suggestion.

But if we take it at face value there are no distinct commands to eat. So we can consider an alternative interpretation: the serpent doesn't command Eve to eat; all he does is remove an obstacle. When he tells Eve that she won't be harmed by the action of eating, but will instead gain something, she doesn't appear to hesitate in taking action. When she offers the fruit to Adam, he takes it and eats from it. Like Eve, there appears to be no hesitation in his decision-making.

It appears as if the only reason they refused to take the fruit before was the fear of consequence. This allows us to rule out the notion that they were simply following commands by rote. But there is a curious lack of introspection by the pair before they eat-- Eve doesn't seem at all concerned over the accusation that god lied to her, nor do she or Adam appear to be worried that they might disappoint or upset god. They do not appear to feel any guilt over this action-- they hide because they suddenly realize that they're naked, not because they felt remorse over what they did.

Could it be that god's only interaction with them to that point was to program them via commands and not make any sort of emotional connection with them? Why would they feel a need to hide their nudity from god? They weren't hiding anything he hadn't seen before! Why didn't they express any guilt or remorse? Why didn't Eve immediately challenge the serpent's version of the story, and instead take it at face value? Why didn't Adam express any of these concerns? I wonder how much of this is due to it being a story that was assembled from many divergent tellings, and how much is from a writer whose text editor consistent of a chisel.

---

The reformed teaching on this is that Eve should have simply resorted to the authority of God’s word. The serpent makes her question God’s authority and to appeal to her own autonomous arbitration. Adam and Eve should have handled the situation as Christ did when dealing with Satan in the Wilderness. You will notice that Christ always appeals to God’s word and final authority and it is successful against the serpent.

[Mister Agenda]

Not if nobody dies.

Are you saying that you do not understand what death is because you have not experienced it?

She's saying she couldn't understand death prior to death actually existing. No one could. Especially since the popular Christian interpretation is that what God REALLY meant was some kind intangible spiritual death, since the two did NOT die that day but lived for centuries after, according to the story. How were they supposed to understand that what God actually meant was that 'on the day therof of which you eat, I'm going to hand out some punishments, and then after you live some centuries longer, your biological functions will cease as well'.

And you claim that A&E could distinguish right from wrong before eating the fruit. How do you reconcile that with the fact that they were unaware of their nakedness until they ate it?

[John V]

As I see it, he was urging her to do so by trying to convince her that the action would be beneficial and not harmful.

Yes, and that's not an order.

That strikes me as hair-splitting. Eve gave him the fruit and he ate it. I think it's reasonable to assume that he saw this as, at the very least, a suggestion. Since the account says she gave it to him, as opposed to offering it, I think it's more than just suggestion.

But if we take it at face value there are no distinct commands to eat.

Yep.

So we can consider an alternative interpretation: the serpent doesn't command Eve to eat; all he does is remove an obstacle. When he tells Eve that she won't be harmed by the action of eating, but will instead gain something, she doesn't appear to hesitate in taking action. When she offers the fruit to Adam, he takes it and eats from it. Like Eve, there appears to be no hesitation in his decision-making.

It appears as if the only reason they refused to take the fruit before was the fear of consequence. This allows us to rule out the notion that they were simply following commands by rote.

Yep.

But there is a curious lack of introspection by the pair before they eat-- Eve doesn't seem at all concerned over the accusation that god lied to her, nor do she or Adam appear to be worried that they might disappoint or upset god. They do not appear to feel any guilt over this action-- they hide because they suddenly realize that they're naked, not because they felt remorse over what they did.

Could it be that god's only interaction with them to that point was to program them via commands and not make any sort of emotional connection with them? Why would they feel a need to hide their nudity from god? They weren't hiding anything he hadn't seen before! Why didn't they express any guilt or remorse? Why didn't Eve immediately challenge the serpent's version of the story, and instead take it at face value? Why didn't Adam express any of these concerns? I wonder how much of this is due to it being a story that was assembled from many divergent tellings, and how much is from a writer whose text editor consistent of a chisel.

So if the account recorded some internal debate by A&E you'd find it reasonable?

[Statler Waldorf]

She's saying she couldn't understand death prior to death actually existing. No one could. Especially since the popular Christian interpretation is that what God REALLY meant was some kind intangible spiritual death, since the two did NOT die that day but lived for centuries after, according to the story. How were they supposed to understand that what God actually meant was that 'on the day therof of which you eat, I'm going to hand out some punishments, and then after you live some centuries longer, your biological functions will cease as well'.

I am not following this at all, why exactly could they not understand what death was prior to anyone dying? None of us has experienced it and we all seem to understand it just fine. I am also missing the relevance of this anyways, they should not have eaten the fruit because God told them not to, end of story. God telling us not to do any action-regardless of what it is-is enough to make it wrong to do that action.

And you claim that A&E could distinguish right from wrong before eating the fruit. How do you reconcile that with the fact that they were unaware of their nakedness until they ate it?

They were aware of it but not ashamed of it. How does that mean they did not know right from wrong prior to eating the fruit? If they did not know right from wrong then the serpent would not have had to persuade Eve as he did, he could have simply told her she should eat the fruit. Rather he had to question what God had said because she clearly knew that she ought to not disobey God. The rest of Genesis seems to indicate that eating the fruit seemed to cloud their moral judgment if anything.