God's injustice towards Adam and Eve

[John V]

That would depend on what it revealed. I find it an interesting story but the lack of detail allows for a broad range of interpretation.

So it's possible to interpret it in a fashion which reaches a reasonable result.

I like the JW's explanation: they believe that the Tree of Knowledge was just another tree; its fruit did not contain some magic ingredient that would expand anyone's mind. What made the tree 'special' was that god commanded Adam not to eat from it on pain of death. The tree was a symbol of god's sovereignty. As long as they stayed away from it, Adam and Eve were making it clear that they respected god's right to make the rules and guide their actions.

When the serpent tells Eve that she will "become like god, knowing good and evil" he is really telling her that she would become like god in that she would be able to determine for herself what was right or wrong. Eating from the fruit would be her way of declaring her independence from god, and from his rules. Hence she would 'know' right from wrong because she would decide what was right or wrong.

It doesn't quite account for why the couple suddenly realizes that they are nude and decide to cover up, unless it's a metaphor for their guilt.

Could be. You've complained that they didn't show remorse (not sure why - people frequently do wrong and don't show remorse), but their hiding could be indicative of shame and remorse.

But that wouldn't square with the idea that they had knowingly decided to reject god,

Eve didn't - she was deceived. Adam did. But what's the problem? A rejection isn't necessarily total and final.

nor does it explain their apparent lack of any emotional attachment to god. That one seems odd to me-- did the writers just not consider that at all, or did it simply not make it into the version that we have today?

IMO the hiding does show that they had had emotional attachment to god.

[Mister Agenda]

It's relevant to whether they were competent to be held accountable. There's a good reason we don't execute a six-year-old who kills someone.

Are you trying to hold God to a manmade conception of justice?

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'.

God owned Adam and Eve so any attempted analogies drawn from how humans treat other humans is going to fall short of being analogous because we do not own one another.

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.

Hypothetically speaking, sure. It doesn't mean the person doing it understands the wrongness of what they're doing. The plain wording of the story has A&E not knowing right from wrong until after they ate the fruit. I appreciate that you have a different interpretation, but it seems to be based entirely on the premise that it can't possibly REALLY make God look unjust.

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='718795' dateline='1406585460']
Well it’s impossible for God to be unjust because justice itself is rooted in His immutable character.

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

Does the plain reading of the story indicate that Adam and Eve were not alive since they were not allowed to eat from the “Tree of Life”?

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

If not, then why does the plain reading indicate that they did not know any good from evil until after they ate from the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil”? I think you are reading too much into the names of the two trees.

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

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='718731' dateline='1406579694']
Sigh, that's what I mean by their awareness of their nakedness, sorry I didn't express it in a way that made that clear enough for you. Anyway yes, they did not feel shame prior to eating the fruit. You can't feel shame unless you know you did something wrong.

It’s not like it was morally wrong for Adam and Eve to be naked prior to the fall and they just did not know it, it was actually not morally wrong. The fall had a drastic effect on all of creation.

That's your ad hoc explanation, yes.

Shame is consciousness that your behavior was wrong. It's in the defintion and everything.

Yes, but they may have felt shame because being naked became wrong after the fall. My Bible actually does not say they were ashamed, it simply says that their eyes were opened and they knew that they were naked.

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.

A minute ago you were arguing that she knew what dying was, now you're arguing she had to know right from wrong in order to not want to do something she'd been told would kill her? It doesn't take a moral sense to resist doing things that might kill you, just a sense of self-preservation.

The reason she initially gave him for not eating the fruit was that God had commanded them not to. Rather than challenging whether or not she should listen to God, the serpent challenges what God actually told her.

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.

You could make a much better case for that had not God specified there would be dire consequences for disobedience. The threat of death nullifies any argument that she had to know it was morally wrong to disobey to resist the serpent's wiles for even a moment. Instead it emphasizes her child-like mentality that she will apparently believes whatever she was last told, no matter who or what it came from.

Wait, so if I tell my hypothetical children the horrible consequences of adultery I am somehow undermining the fact that it is morally wrong?

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.

According to your version, they had perfect moral judgement up to the point where they ate the fruit, which is pretty odd since when they had perfect moreal clarity, they ate the fruit!

No, that’s not what I am saying at all. I am saying that they knew that they morally ought to obey God and He was in communion with them and turn giving them perfect revelation as to what was right and wrong. They were resting upon his perfect and ultimate moral authority.

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.

Once they ate the fruit they lost that, they were left with their own fallible and clouded judgments. That’s the entire concept of sin, it’s a separation between man and God.

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.

Look, I get that this particular part of Genesis is poorly written, but you're taking a story where a single fruit can affect your sense of morality or make you immortal literally. I don't think the people who first wrote it down took it nearly as literally as you do.

Then why is it written in the style of a historical narrative?

Everybody tells their just so stories like they really happened

Why did Jesus believe it was accurate history?

Best guess: Because he was a Jew.

Paul? Peter? And John?

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

It would be absurd of me to believe I am more spiritually enlightened than Christ himself.

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

I do not believe it is poorly written at all, it’s a profoundly deep narrative that makes perfect sense when examined within the context of the Bible and redemptive history as a whole.

Funny, that's almost exactly what Muslims say about the Qu'ran.

[Tonus]

So it's possible to interpret it in a fashion which reaches a reasonable result.

What do you mean by 'a reasonable result'?

Could be. You've complained that they didn't show remorse (not sure why - people frequently do wrong and don't show remorse), but their hiding could be indicative of shame and remorse.

What I was wondering is why Eve so readily accepted the contradictory claims of the serpent, and why Adam appears to have just as readily accepted the fruit from Eve. Paul claims that Eve was deceived, but the deception apparently was no more sophisticated than "nuh-uh." Adam wasn't deceived, perhaps because it wasn't necessary-- just handing him the fruit was sufficient. It makes it seem as if god made little or no impression on the two, that they so easily turned against him.

Eve didn't - she was deceived. Adam did. But what's the problem? A rejection isn't necessarily total and final.

It was, in their case. They demonstrated their rejection of god through an action that had very specific (and final) consequences.

IMO the hiding does show that they had had emotional attachment to god.

If they did, it appears to have been fear. It doesn't make sense that fear would be the only --or the primary-- emotion they would associate with god, but it's the only one that I can recognize in the story.

[Ryantology]

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.

[Welsh cake]

So that He may be glorified through the redemption of His fallen people.

...

So that He may be glorified through Satan’s destruction.

Wow...

What a colossal cosmic cunt.

Bringing to life and killing his living creations just so they can make him look good. Reality could collapse into itself and the egocentric prick would still be conceited and proud of himself.

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

[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.

[Tonus]

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?

I think I understand what you mean here, but am not sure. I am assuming that this is a form of the 'might makes right' argument? No one can impose his will upon god, whereas god can impose his will on anyone, thus it is god's will that is sovereign. If god says that eating cheesecake on Thursday is forbidden, he has the muscle to back that command with action if he needs to. Whereas if I warn god against creating any new planets on Sunday afternoon, he can just laugh it off and dare me to stop him as he ramps up production of another solar system (and makes the universe fast-forward to Sunday afternoon just to be a bit of a brat about it).

Is that the sort of thing you are hinting at here?

[Statler Waldorf]

I think I understand what you mean here, but am not sure. I am assuming that this is a form of the 'might makes right' argument? No one can impose his will upon god, whereas god can impose his will on anyone, thus it is god's will that is sovereign. If god says that eating cheesecake on Thursday is forbidden, he has the muscle to back that command with action if he needs to. Whereas if I warn god against creating any new planets on Sunday afternoon, he can just laugh it off and dare me to stop him as he ramps up production of another solar system (and makes the universe fast-forward to Sunday afternoon just to be a bit of a brat about it).

Is that the sort of thing you are hinting at here?

Yes pretty close, I would not call it might makes right, I would call it more the creator vs. creature distinction. The Apostle Paul speaks of this at length in the 9th Chapter of his letter to the Church in Rome with his potter and clay analogy. People may not like what God does but ultimately it proves nothing in regards to God’s character.

[Ryantology]

Yes pretty close, I would not call it might makes right, I would call it more the creator vs. creature distinction.

The only distinction to be made between the two is that of power, and you categorically advocate that idea that a superior power's character in terms of its justice and fairness is justified by the idea that its superiority alone makes it above reproach by lesser beings. You don't want to call it might makes right, both because that moral basis is the antithesis of actual justice, and because that's precisely how, 100% of the time, you justify every assertion you ever presented about the character of your god (with "you can't prove a negative" being how you justify every assertion you present regarding your god's existence).

[Statler Waldorf]

The only distinction to be made between the two is that of power…

No it’s not. One being is the creator of the other therefore the first being owns the other. It’s a question of ownership, not power. God has the right to destroy his creatures because He owns them, I do not have the right to destroy an innocent person even if I have the might and means to do it because I do not own that person.

Ironically, in a purely material and natural Universe might would make right. Only in a Christian ethic is that not the case.

(with "you can't prove a negative" being how you justify every assertion you present regarding your god's existence).

You must be confusing me with someone else because that’s not how I argue at all.