The Almighty Afterthought

[William]

'You shall surely die"

Genesis 2:15...
And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Given there were no other options made available on the breaking of this commandment, and with the Christian claim that the biblical God [BG] is the perfect parent-figure;

QFD: Is withholding/not providing other options [such as the possibility of forgiveness through repentance] really to be considered the perfect way to do parenting?

[William]

QFD: Is withholding/not providing other options [such as the possibility of forgiveness through repentance] really to be considered the perfect way to do parenting?

I think neglecting to have options or neglecting to give information about any options, is not a healthy way for parent/child relationship to develop on a healthy responsible platform.

I think it is a form of control and abuse.

I also think that the use of fear and guilt makes any relationship lopsided and harmful, and benefits neither the parent or the child.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #164]

No.

The command was clear and the consequence for breaking the command is also clear.

"You Shall Surely Die."

Indeed.

Eat and you will die.

Not... "eat and I will cause you to die." Not... "eat and I will kill you." Not... "eat and I will make sure you die."

Eat and you will die.

Cause and effect.

Clutching at straw there Tam. Fact is whatever BG kept from Adam is indicative of deception.

Effectively the action of evicting Adam from the garden so he didn't have access to the fruit of life, was what caused Adam to die. That is what killed Adam. That is how it was made sure Adam would die.

[See the Almighty Afterthought for more on that.]

As inconvenient as that may be for you, "it is written"

The bible also does not say "Disobey me and I will make sure you die."

Well now I beg to differ since it is written Adam was commanded by BG not to eat or he would surely die.
It is written Tam. Adam ate what he was told not to, and Adam had to die and indeed, having no access to the fruit of life, surely did die.

That the bible didn't say that in the words you say, doesn't change the facts at all.

Search "Disobey"
fail to obey (rules, a command, or someone in authority).

Nor is that the God that Christ shows us

Well now - it is true that Biblical Jesus [BJ] did not actually refer to the Hebrew God by name, so to tell us he was talking about the same entity as the one he called hi "Father" and they sure do appear to be different entities, but we will just have to stick to the story Christians tell us about that.

If only the biblical God [BG] had informed Adam that if he did eat of the fruit, he could still be forgiven if he sincerely repented, but nope. All Adam was told was that he would surely die, and BG made sure that would happen.

Where Christ was at the time, is anyone's guess, but he wasn't in the picture when BG was dealing with Adam as far as the garden story goes. Maybe if he had of been, he could have reminded BG to let Adam know about the repentance/forgiveness clause.

But all that is speculation at best. It didn't happen that way. It happened the way the story is written.

I am calling this the "Almighty Afterthought" since the writer wrote it that way...

The Almighty Afterthought:
Genesis 3:22
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:”

“Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

Clearly the intention to kick Adam out of the garden and away from access to the fruit which would render the prophesy null and also show the Serpent lied [Genesis 3:4
“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die] was pre-thought as the only way in which it would be assured that Adam did indeed, die.

I don't know what you are trying to say in that last sentence.

It means that because the Serpent told the Woman that she would not 'surely die' if she ate the fruit, if Adam had of had access to eating the fruit of life, disobeying BG, then the Serpent would have been shown to have told the truth.

Because BG had to be seen to be the one telling the truth, Adam had to be expelled from the garden so he couldn't eat said fruit, thus he surely died as BG had predicted, and the Serpent then, was shown to have lied.

Its all there in the Almighty Afterthought.

That might be your personal theology, William, but Adam died from eating the fruit of the tree of knowing good and bad/life and death. You cannot eat of death... and yet live.

Wrong again Tam. It was not the forbidden fruit which killed Adam. That tree, like all the rest was 'good for food'

Genesis 1:12
“And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 2:9
“And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”

It appears that your personal theology is not aligned with what is actually written Tam...for whatever reason you believe that the fruit of the tree of knowing good and evil was 'bad', it is written in fact that it was GOOD, and who said it was good? Why - it was BG who said it was good...so shall I listen to what Tammy say's about this, or accept was actually written about this?

[that was a rhetorical question]

UNLESS... you are then permitted to reach out and eat from the Tree of Life.

I am surprised that you are making such effort to add to your own words to the story Tam.

Adam was never told that the fruit of tree of life was not allowed to be eaten, prior to all this happening. Indeed it is written;

Genesis 2:16...
“And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

After the fact - as has been shown - he was prevented from having any more access to the tree of life, [see again -The Almighty Afterthought] and that was the reason he eventually died - although it did take around 900 years for him to finally do so.

It would have been irresponsible to make the problem Adam caused go away with no consequences at all.

What was irresponsible was that Adam was not informed of all possible outcomes - such as the [supposed] option of being repentant and gaining forgiveness. All Adam knew was that he would die. He wasn't even informed that his death would NOT be immediate, [he was told it would happen 'in that day' - implying death would come quickly] so even in that, because Eve suffered no obvious ill effects from the forbidden fruit [she did not die then and there and appeared to be enjoying its tastiness] this emboldened him to take a bite himself.

The reason didn't die immediately because the fruit was good for food [not poisonous]. As is written, it was no longer having access to the fruit of life which was what caused Adam to eventually die.

The responsibility for making sure none of the subsequent thousands of years of human misery didn't happen, was NOT Adams. The responsibility to ensure Adam was fully informed was NOT Adams. That Adam "could not be trusted" was NOT Adams doing. The BG was the one who didn't trust Adam. Why else would he set up the test in the first place, and leave Adam only with the idea that if Adam disobeyed, then Adam would surely die? Not 'might have to die unless he repented', or any other such option. Just "You shall sure die."

All said and done, there was simply no reason why the command should have been given other than

1: The BG didn't trust himself to be able to create a 'perfect' image of himself in Adam and had to test Adam
or
2: The BG did create a perfect image of himself in Adam and that is why he had to test Adam.

But either way, there is no getting around the fact that the BG did not fully inform Adam of any other fate other than "you shall surely die".

The kicker is - as every loving parent knows - when your child does wrong and knows that the consequence will be a punishment, if the child knows about repentance and forgiveness which the Parent is capable of doing and willing to do, the child has the option of taking that path, should the child, at any time - slip up. [as Children naturally do]

Adam - as is clearly written - was never given that option.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to William in post #1]

What do you mean? God was very forthright with Adam and, after untold years of talking with him, strolling in the Garden in the breezy part of the day, and clearly explaining what would happen if Adam took fruit off that one tree. Adam was no innocent dummy. He knew exactly what would happen if he took the forbidden fruit. There were many other trees to eat from that Adam and Eve could've sated themselves with. Nothing good was being held back from them.

Of course Jehovah would've forgiven an innocent mistake. But A&E didn't commit a "mistake".....it was deliberate and willful, and that is why they died.

.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to William in post #1]

QFD: Is withholding/not providing other options [such as the possibility of forgiveness through repentance] really to be considered the perfect way to do parenting?

I'm not sure anyone has said or been able to show, there to be 'the perfect way to do parenting'.
Seems with billions of people alive, there are various good and better ways to parent. At least for humans.

If we consider 'the perfect being', I'm not sure there's any analogy that would be apt, as nothing that any human can demonstrate is perfect. I cringe at the comparison of 'god to humanity' and 'parent to child'. It's not remotely an apples-to-apples comparison, as no parent is perfect.

If we consider god isn't (wasn't?) perfect, then that opens the idea up to other options, I suspect, making the 'god/parent' analogy much more palatable and more apt.

At this point, we have to ask: for this discussion, is god to be considered perfect or not?

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #4]

God was very forthright with Adam and, after untold years of talking with him, strolling in the Garden in the breezy part of the day, and clearly explaining what would happen if Adam took fruit off that one tree.

It is best to stick with what is written. Tammy has already tried to add to what was written, so her investment in the beliefs she has, remain undisturbed. You are also adding things which have no bearing on the idea that YHWH acted like a good human parent would, by making sure the child was not abused through meaningless commands which serve only to glorify the commander through fear and guilt placed into the commanded. [parent/child dynamics]

The fruit was not the poison which caused the death. I won't go into any more detail on that, than I have already argued.

If you want to engage in debate about it, then address those arguments.

[William]

At this point, we have to ask: for this discussion, is god to be considered perfect or not?

The Christian belief is that yes - the god of the garden is not only to be considered perfect, but also to be considered a parent re biblical Jesus use of the word "Father".

The question asked pertains to that.

QFD: Is withholding/not providing other options [such as the possibility of forgiveness through repentance] really to be considered the perfect way to do parenting?

[Tcg]

The Christian belief is that yes - the god of the garden is not only to be considered perfect, but also to be considered a parent re biblical Jesus use of the word "Father".

You are using Jesus' use of the word "Father" to support your claim that the god of the garden should be considered a "Father?"

You are aware of the time difference? That the tales of Jesus came many centuries AFTER the tale of the garden?


Tcg

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #4]

God was very forthright with Adam and, after untold years of talking with him, strolling in the Garden in the breezy part of the day, and clearly explaining what would happen if Adam took fruit off that one tree.

It is best to stick with what is written. Tammy has already tried to add to what was written, so her investment in the beliefs she has, remain undisturbed. You are also adding things which have no bearing on the idea that YHWH acted like a good human parent would, by making sure the child was not abused through meaningless commands which serve only to glorify the commander through fear and guilt placed into the commanded. [parent/child dynamics]

The fruit was not the poison which caused the death. I won't go into any more detail on that, than I have already argued.

If you want to engage in debate about it, then address those arguments.

Of course it wasn't the fruit itself that was poison. The tree represented God's right to make laws and principles to guide humans in their day-to-day lives. If A&E took the fruit, they would be saying that they wanted to run their own lives without Him and decide for themselves what was good or bad. They turned their backs on God, willfully and deliberately.

.

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #8]

You are using Jesus' use of the word "Father" to support your claim that the god of the garden should be considered a "Father?"

Nope. I am using the common Christian claim that the god of the garden was the same entity that biblical Jesus was referring to as 'The Father'.