Did god set up Adam and Eve to fail?

[Kenisaw]

The basic timeline in Genesis goes like this:

God creates Adam, and then creates Eden and sticks Adam in there. In Eden is a tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and Adam is told to leave it alone. Then god makes Eve so Adam isn't alone.

One day the happy couple decide to eat fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Their "eyes were opened" as it were.

Here's the problem I keep running into in my mind at this point - If Adam and Eve had no knowledge about good and evil, that means they couldn't have understood the consequences of their actions. Sure they knew god said they would "surely die" if they ate from that tree, but not knowing whether that is a good or bad thing (because they didn't know good from bad) there was no reason not to eat the fruit. They couldn't even know that disobeying god was a bad thing.

Didn't god set them up to fail in this scenario?

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 106 by wiploc]

What gave the gods authority to impose their will on Eve?

Because it was HIS garden. HIS house.

I don't accept that metaphor.

Are you suggesting that the owner of a house does not have the right to make rules in that house; or that guests invited into that house do not have an obligation to respect those rules? Are you suggesting that you could not tell a guest you have invited into your home, that a certain room (or item) is off-limits to them?

I do not suggest that.

Are you suggesting that if I trapped somebody in my house so she could never leave, that I would own her, that I'd have the right to tell her what to do?

If Satan had created the world, he would own us? We'd be morally obligated to obey Satan?

That's really your position?

[wiploc]

I don't see that the Jehovah trio had any more authority over Eve than the serpent did. Or than I have over you. That's my point. You want to address that point?

No, not really.

I'm not sure that leaves us anything to talk about.

Firstly I don't know who or what a "Jehovah trio" is

A reference to Trinitarian doctrine, probably inappropriate since we're discussing the Old Testament, and there was only one god back then.

and secondly the I am seeking clarification on is your original point about their supposed ignorance ("they did not know") on some level (yet to be explained).

I don't know why we should obey gods. That's my point. Is there a reason? I stipulate that the kids understood the instruction. I do not stipulate that we are supposed to obey all instructions from all sources.

My question is whether there is something that distinguishes this god(s) from anyone else who gives instructions. Is there a reason for us to obey the instructions of a god? If so, what is the reason?

But you say that issue doesn't interest you. You don't want to answer that question. So we have come to an end.

Your own feelings about Jehovah (God's) authority in the matter is irrelevant, since I presume you were not there to play a part in the narrative, but I AM interested in whether you see Adam and Eve as understanding there was an issue of authority in play and if so to what degree.

I don't see any reason to think supernatural beings have authority over us. Donald Trump was elected. That gives him some authority. Did your god have as much authority as Trump?

But you aren't interested in this question, so perhaps someone else will address the issue.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 106 by wiploc]

What gave the gods authority to impose their will on Eve?

Because it was HIS garden. HIS house.

I don't accept that metaphor.

Then the point will be lost on you.

My question is whether there is something that distinguishes this god(s) from anyone else who gives instructions.

He loved them. Hence, He gave them instructions that were for their benefit, for their good.

That He loved them is demonstrated in Him creating them, giving them life and everything that they needed, even eternal life (since they had free access to the Tree of Life).


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[wiploc]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 106 by wiploc]

What gave the gods authority to impose their will on Eve?

Because it was HIS garden. HIS house.

I don't accept that metaphor.

Then the point will be lost on you.

My question is whether there is something that distinguishes this god(s) from anyone else who gives instructions.

He loved them.

Is it your position that one ought to obey all instructions from people who love you?

Is it your position that the serpent did not love them?

Does it seem to you plausible that someone who tortures you forever loves you?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 106 by wiploc]

What gave the gods authority to impose their will on Eve?

Because it was HIS garden. HIS house.

I don't accept that metaphor.

Then the point will be lost on you.

My question is whether there is something that distinguishes this god(s) from anyone else who gives instructions.

He loved them.

Is it your position that one ought to obey all instructions from people who love you?

No, because people do not have all knowledge and people make mistakes, even if they love you. But it is a compelling reason to believe that if they are giving you instructions to keep you from harm, their motivation is to keep you from harm.

Is it your position that the serpent did not love them?

Yes.

Does it seem to you plausible that someone who tortures you forever loves you?

No.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[wiploc]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 106 by wiploc]

What gave the gods authority to impose their will on Eve?

Because it was HIS garden. HIS house.

I don't accept that metaphor.

Then the point will be lost on you.

Granted.

Oh, but as long as we're discussing things the kids didn't understand (at least I'm discussing that with somebody here), the notion of property would be one of them.

The god would have to explain the notion of property, and further explain why everything was property, and why all of it belonged to him, and why that was in some mysterious sense fair. And then the kids could say, "Who made that rule? Certainly it wasn't a good god."

My question is whether there is something that distinguishes this god(s) from anyone else who gives instructions.

He loved them.

Is it your position that one ought to obey all instructions from people who love you?

No, because people do not have all knowledge and people make mistakes, even if they love you. But it is a compelling reason to believe that if they are giving you instructions to keep you from harm, their motivation is to keep you from harm.

So it isn't the love that creates the moral obligation. Rather, the obligation is to do things that keep you from harm. You ought to avoid harm.

And Eve knew or should have known that the god's instructions would keep her from harm. And she knew that avoiding harm was a moral obligation. And she knew this despite not yet having tasted the fruit that would give her that knowledge.

I assume that this isn't really your position. Please help me out.

[Willum]

Just a question:

Do people ever eat candy they are told not to?
Do they every drink from bottles with Mr. Yuck stickers on them?

Would you condemn either them or all of mankind for that action.

Maybe Adam or Eve got so sick of Yahweh and HIS paradise they said, "Death? Holy heck, anything is better than this guy!"

and were disappointed they didn't fall to the ground.
Then seeing the didn't die, shrugged it off, and thought about running round naked, and thought that was dumb to.

Don't laugh, I'd rather be in Yahweh's Hell. than his paradise, just on moral grounds - I didn't have to live with him.

[Kenisaw]

If they already knew at least something about good and evil, then I think you and I can agree that they had knowledge about good and evil. Which means eating from a plant labeled "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is rather redundant, wouldn't you agree?

I don’t think it is redundant, it just doesn’t work as the serpent claimed to people.

I agree with your statement, but that was not my point. They wouldn't need to eat from a tree that gave them knowledge of good and evil if they already had knowledge of good and evil. They would have known it was wrong, and not need to be tricked by a serpent (that god put in there naturally).

Eve even though the fruit from the good/evil tree was "good to eat". Obviously it wasn't, given what happened to her after the fact. So if anything the Bible proves that they didn't have at least some knowledge of good and evil.

Yeah, she taught it is good, because she believed that she could become like God. Baseless belief and not very wise move.

But she had no ability to understand that was bad until after she gained knowledge about good and evil by doing a bad thing. Quite the conundrum.

I also fail to see what value there is in being able to ask god anything. Again, if they have no knowledge of good and evil they have no reason to think that there is a consequence for anything, and no need to ask god a question to clarify what they can and can't do.

Person can know the consequences without knowing is it good or not, but as you earlier pointed out, they had ability to think what is good. They taught dying is not good, and they taught becoming like God is good thing.

No they can't. How can a person know the consequences of something if they don't know about good and evil? Knowing they will "surely die" without being able to understand if that is good or bad makes knowing they will "surely die" immaterial. If I tell you that if you take a step forward you will travel about 2 feet, that doesn't affect your decision to do it or not (assuming you aren't on a cliff) because that info doesn't carry any consequences. If you don't understand that surely dying is a bad thing because you don't know what good and bad things are, then it's no different than being told you will travel two feet if you take a step forward. Threatening Adam and Eve with death doesn't affect their decisions because they couldn't understand the consequences of their actions.

You want to hang your hat on the Bible saying that Eve said the fruit was good to eat. Yet you ignore that their eyes were "opened" after eating the fruit and they began to understand good and evil. Clearly by "good to eat" Eve knew it was edible (because god even told them it is) and not because she had knowledge about good and evil. That obviously happened after her baby blues were "opened".

God doesn’t say that the tree gives any knowledge, it is just called with that name, probably because after one eats from it, it leads to knowledge that Adam and Eve got. It is not directly from the fruit, but from the consequences.

Semantics. Whether it was the fruit, or from the consequences of eating the fruit, they still didn't understand the consequences until after the got hit with the consequences...

Which means nothing to someone who can't understand what a consequence is when lacking the knowledge of good and evil. If surely dying can't be comprehended as a bad thing, it's not a deterrent. If disobeying a god can't be comprehended as a bad thing, why punish someone for doing it?

They knew there will be death, which is a consequence. It doesn’t really matter does person think death is bad and by what I see death is not bad, why else so many babies would be murdered by abortion?

Yes, they knew they would "surely die". They probably also knew that taking a step forward would move them 2 feet. But because they cannot assign any value to such actions because they had no knowledge of good and evil, the "surely die" was no different than moving 2 feet. It's not a deterrent (or an encouragement) if you don't know that it is good or evil.

They wanted to know evil, so God gave them opportunity to know it really, by experience, that is why they were sent to this first death. I think what God did, was not really a punishment, but what people asked.

They didn't want for anything, they were in the Garden of Eden, remember? This tale gets weirder the more we talk about it. They wanted for nothing, but wanted to know evil. They had no knowledge about good and evil, but are punished for doing something evil. God threatens them with dying which means nothing to two people that don't know that dying is a bad thing. It's curious that anyone finds this story appealing or useful.

So I guess god putting a snake that it created in the garden was just a coincidence too.

I don’t think it was a coincidence. It was a path away from God, so that people don’t have to be with God, if they rather like the evil world.

So, we've all descended from a couple of morons. Morons who, let's not forget, where made by god in its own image, and who had to be morons by design since god is responsible for all of creation.

Sounds more and more like the OP is right, and god set this whole baby up to fail...

[Kenisaw]

But like I stated, obviously they didn't know good from evil if Eve is thinking the fruit was good for eating, and she ended up getting tossed out of the Eden apartment forever because of it.

Sorry, I think your claim can’t be supported with any reasonable argument. They knew what was said, and if they taught they should know more, before making the decision, they should have asked from God.

But again, why should A&E think they should know more if they don't understand that bad consequences can happen from decisions? They had zero understanding that surely dying was an evil thing, because they had no knowledge of evil, so no reason to ask clarification questions to the god that didn't bother to give them knowledge of good and evil in the first place.

She didn't know it was a good or bad thing, so there's no way for her to understand consequences. There's no wisdom in this either. You can't make a wise move if you can't know good and evil and therefore understand the consequences of your actions...

She taught it was good thing. Good and evil are matters of opinions. One can think eating the fruit was good and other can think it is bad, opinions doesn’t really matter. What matters is the real things that happen.

Wait, I thought there was objective morality in the universe, thanks to god. So isn't good and evil rather cut and dried in god's eyes (or whatever a transcendent being uses for eyes)?

What really matters is that A&E have no opportunity to consider the consequences of their actions because they have no ability to understand what a consequence is because they have no knowledge of evil.

They can know the consequences, but they have no reason to think consequences matter because they don't know anything about good and evil. This was all covered in the OP.

I don’t see any good reason to believe that consequences don’t matter, if one doesn’t know is it really god or evil. For example, in their case it was said that with death they shall die. If one doesn’t want that, then he doesn’t eat. No reason to know is it good or evil. And death itself is not good or evil.

The consequence does matter, it's the ability to understand that consequences matter that is the issue here. They knew they would surely die if they ate from that tree, but they can't possibly understand the gravity of that if they have no idea what bad is. And despite your comment to the contrary, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people would agree that dying is a bad thing, especially when it includes living a life or pain and suffering before you die.

A consequence that they had no ability to comprehend. They couldn't even understand what a consequence was.

If that is true, why make s decision, without understanding it? Isn’t that really stupid move?[/quote]

You should ask your god, after all he made them that way, didn't he....

Do you often make decisions without understanding them?

Yes, but I live in a fallen world and can be given the knowledge of good and evil and therefore understand consequences, so my situation is not comparable to Adam & Eve's in paradise.

How could they want to know evil if they had no concept of what evil was?

Because of what the serpent told, she taught it is a good thing.

The serpent that god put in the Garden, eh? God made it nice and cunning too apparently. Just to make sure his plan to make them fall went off without a hitch...

Your comment is interesting though. So would you agree that god made them curious? And since curiosity existed before the fall, we can assume that curiosity is a good thing?

I think the move was not made because of curiosity, but because Eve wanted to become like God.

And of course she had no idea that wanting to become like god was a bad thing, did she. But thanks to the serpent that god designed and put in Eden, she went the direction god needed her to go in so that he could have generations of worshipers to come...

[Kenisaw]

My problem with the Eden story is that Adam and Eve weren't given any knowledge about good and evil, and therefore couldn't understand the consequences of doing something "naughty" or "bad" because they didn't know that was a thing. They couldn't even know that disobeying the god was an evil thing, because they lacked knowledge about good and evil.

The fallacy is 1. believing that every communication between A&E and GOD is recorded which implies 2. that GOD didn't treat them righteously.

Consider: walking and talking with HIM implies more than that a few sentences between them...

I agree with you ttruscott. But since this word of the god written/inspired by the god is all we have to go on, what else are we supposed to conclude? God made A&E, he made them without knowledge of good and evil, he made a tree with a food source as the tree of knowledge of good and evil (he could've made it a cypress or douglas fir you know), he makes a "cunning" serpent to tempt them, and then he punishes them for doing something that they could not possibly know was a bad thing to do because they had no knowledge of good or evil.

Put Newman and Redford in it, and it's another The Sting movie...