Why Adam and Eve were unfairly judged by God

by BreakingAway 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Perry

  Gen 6:3

  And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. - KJV

  Hi Candlelight,

  I know that this is a technicality... but I do not believe that the Spirit of God was ever in man until the new birth that was offered by Jesus in the NT. I have found the KJV to be the most docrtinally accurate, supported by the best texts, and translated by an assortium of 47 scholars that blows aways any such assemblage before or since.

  God Bless,

  http://youtube.com/watch?v=_LvhQty02fk&feature=related
• 

  BreakingAway

  Calm down there Breaking Away... take a deep breath. That's better. Now, let's just talk some scientific facts OK? Ever heard of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Systems and organisms (of which the human body is one) will break down over time unless an outside force acts upon it. Got it?

  The premise underlying your reasoning is flawed. Your underlying assumption is that eternal life is the natural state of the human being and that God is interrupting this natural state of things. The truth is the opposite of your reasoning. Decay is the natural state of things and since God is the Source of Life, we are dependant on him to intervene and interrupt this natural state.

  In other words, everlasting life is a gift and not a right as you intimate.

  Who said I wasn't calm ? Talk about assumptions.As for sending you Eve's address...apparently you have a contextual reading problem, so you might want to get that checked out before it spreads.

  And Scientifics "facts", huh ? Gotcha..let's talk about some. Oh, you mean the Bible and Science in the same breath ? I'm not sure we're gonna get too far there, but I know you'll try. How about science proving the "flood" ? Alright then, let's just stick to this subject..

  The premise underlying your reasoning is flawed. Your underlying assumption is that eternal life is the natural state of the human being and that God is interrupting this natural state of things. The truth is the opposite of your reasoning. Decay is the natural state of things and since God is the Source of Life, we are dependant on him to intervene and interrupt this natural state.

  So in other words, Adam and Eve would HAVE died even if they DIDN'T eat the fruit because death and decay are the "natural" state of things, is that right ?

  But wait...I thought God said: "..you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." But what he really meant was: "When you eat from it, I won't let you eat from the other tree and I'll Iet you die just like the way I made you."

  "So I'm going to die anyway ? "

  "No, no, don't you get it ? Oh, wait, what I mean is.Okay, yes, you're gonna die ?

  "Why ? "

  "Cause, I said SO !

  "You don't need to yell"

  Look, I'm sorry I yelled, but can we just get back to this don't eat the fruit thing ?"

  "You brought it up..."

  "Dammit ! I swear, sometimes I wish I never made you kids...."

  "Okay, Look.All I'm saying here is: IF you go long enough without eating from the tree of Good and Bad I'll let you eat from the good tree and then you won't die."

  "But we're still gonna die though, right ? "

  I suppose Adam and Eve , in their decaying state, would have eventually reached a point where God would have determined they were obedient and appreciative enough and then dropped them off at the nearest Tree of Eternal Life to munch on the grindage and counteract the decaying state and instantaneously turn all of their cells into nondecaying energizer bunny cells that never run out.Is that close ? I'm so glad we were able to do some science here today.Who'd a thunk it ?

  "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

  So at this point, they apparently didn't know what good and evil was,or as some say "Good and Bad",so they didn't know good from bad.Or was it just the extent of evil ? Therefore, could they know if eating the fruit was good and bad ? Because God said they shouldn't.And yet, they didn't know right from wrong, so the "test" was pretty unfair.They were made innocent and had never seen badness.However, if they DID have some idea of Good and Evil then they already possessed what the tree had to offer and the tree was essentially false in itself,as well as it's premise. And God's statement that "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." presents a contradiction as well

  However, the concept presents itself that eating from the tree of good and evil refers to the experience of good and evil.That is, one might say that they had never experienced evil and after eating they came to realize that they had been tricked and thus experienced evil and that's why God warned them because he never wanted them to experience it.But is that so ? For that to be true then same must also be true about Good.That their eyes were opened to what "good" was.But isn't everything God does good ? Surely, they experienced that before eating.Or if Good refers to the idea that now they came to realize that their actions were bad and obedience was good then did they really know good to begin with ? And if one doesn't really know good then how can they be fairly tested ?

  Just one more thing:

  The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity;

  Oops ! Where the hell did that come from ? Oh, it was "God's WORD" as recorded at Ezekiel 18:20 Another example:David sinned,God killed his kid. "Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David..."

  Perry wrote:

  Here you falsely suppose that babies are "good" enough to claim the right of eternal life. Again, a faulty premise that leads you to a wrong conclusion.

  This is circular reasoning:Babies aren't born good, so they are bad.They are bad because Adam and Eve were, therefore it's Adam and Eve's fault that they are "bad", therefore they are owed nothing because they aren't good.

  Not circular reasoning:

  Isn't it true that they would have been "good" if they weren't made "bad" by someone who made them bad because of something they didn't do ? Therefore, how can the One who calls Himself good not be bad when he made the good bad due to no error of their own ?

  Have fun Perry.
• 

  Perry

  Candlelight,

  Let me clarify a bit. I do believe that God can put his spirit in whomever he chooses, even before Christ.... I just don't believe that it was offered as a option to "whosoever" (John 3: 16), until the Bood Covenant was offered to all mankind.
• 

  Perry

  one might say that they had never experienced evil and after eating they came to realize that they had been tricked and thus experienced evil and that's why God warned them because he never wanted them to experience it.But is that so ? For that to be true then same must also be true about Good.That their eyes were opened to what "good" was.But isn't everything God does good ? Surely, they experienced that before eating.Or if Good refers to the idea that now they came to realize that their actions were bad and obedience was good then did they really know good to begin with ? And if one doesn't really know good then how can they be fairly tested ?

  I think this is the crux of your argument here above. I am much more comfortable dealing with premises and I thank you for that.

  Your premise is an a priori, that God tricked them.... or a least gave them an unfair test as you conclude. You'll need to come up with an alternate scenario that would cement the relationship between the infinite and the finite to force that square peg into that round hole.

  That Adam and Eve could not know Good and Evil I agree. That is NOT the same thing as knowing right from wrong. Think about it. Your reasoning seems to imply an interchangeableness between the terms and their implications; they are not interchangeable.

  Even following your logic, based on the faulty premise as it is, leads one to conclude .... that God could not morally issue even one edict unless his creation had as much knowledge as He had.... in order to test it's veracity. Try raising children according that that worldview..... utter failure and chaos. I know, I've got an 18 month old and a 36 month old right now that I'm dealing with. You may have raised children yourself and can concur that obedience to certain things is beyound the intellectual scope of small children. We are small children compared to an infinite God.

  I'm just trying to cut to the chase here and save us some time: The argument could always be made (and is the basic point of atheists) that they don't have enough proof or information to be able to go along with something that God says.

  This is a mindless agrument in that a person would have to himself be infinite in order to go along with what God says... or at least to find out all the possible ramifications of its consequences..... which of course is nonsense.

  Fact: Adam and Eve knew that God created them and that he was friendly.

  Fact: They chose to believe a snake that I'm sure appeared anything but friendly, and did not create them.

  Fact: They could not and did not know everything, but did know that they would break relationship with God, who had done them no wrong and that was not right.

  Fact: They found out for themselves what life was like without God.

  They found the knowledge of good and evil. Before, they simply had a snowflake on a white background. How could they know what was good without the evil consequences of their choices?

  But did they know that it was intellectually "wrong" ?

  You betcha.
• 

  RR

  Actually God did not give Adam and Eve a raw deal. Judge Rutherford and the Watchtower Society gave them a raw deal. C.T. Russell believed that Jesus died for Adam and in dying for Adam, redeemed ALL of mankind, because mankid came from the lions of Adam.

  We're told that Jesus "died a ransom for all." I wonder what part of ALL the JW's don't understand.

  RR
• 

  BreakingAway

  Fact: Adam and Eve knew that God created them and that he was friendly.

  Fact: They could not and did not know everything, but did know that they would break relationship with God, who had done them no wrong and that was not right

  Good point.I'm defeated.I kid, I kid.

  Let me specifically address the above quoted issues as I'd imagine you feel it's your coup de grace on this matter.

  "God was friendly". How friendly was he ? God was so friendly that when...he knew that a rebellious angel intent on destroying all living things and turning them against God..... decided to say exactly zippo on the subject to his dearly loved and newly created humans.They were easy prey.Now, ALL of the angels were privy to this information but apparently God felt that these innocent humans whose life, and all successive generations, hung in the balance, who unlike the angels,were not around when even the earth was created, once again decided he would say nothing and "See how it goes." Now, THAT is friendly and loving.

  What loving parent would not warn their children ahead of time of ALL of the consequences ? Now, back to above quoted point...

  Essentially, that statement is conjecture.It is a mere unproven presumption.Saying what they did was wrong does not make it wrong.The snake had not harmed them either.Was the snake actually the one who created them ? After all, Adam woke up and was there.Who did it ? Why wasn't he told ahead of time about an entity that sought to present another side of what they were told by another entity ? Each presented their case.The snake said they "Would BECOME LIKE God".Not that the relationship would end."Now we will all be Gods",she might have thought.Adam on the other hand apparently wasn't deceived and so he figured they would both die.But, despite the fact that he was willing to accept his fate, could he not have felt that what was pronounced upon them was wrong ? That maybe he felt that he wasn't really wrong, but merely that God said:"This is the way it is." Just because he believed God would carry out what he said he would do does not mean Adam felt it was right or even that his own actions were wrong.

  For instance, a parent tells a child that if they take a cookie before dinner they will be punished.The child may very well believe they will be punished but not that their own action of taking the cookie was wrong.It is a conceptual understanding."Why can't I have the cookie ? " One might ask, "If the child knew the parents were always good to him would he not obey ? Why would he doubt ?" If the child took the cookie would you automatically assume the child didn't love the parent ? Adam and Eve weren't children but I argue that the lack of experience and information they lacked created confusion that distorted reality and made "truth" questionable.

  RR certainly presents an interesting point to which some religions adhere. (I'm not sure... but I think the Bible Students still hold this view, which is a reflection of Charles Taze Russell's belief).Such a conclusion seeks to address the issue of fairness but in my opinion still falls far short as some time back I presented the case where God would not, in fact, have to let all living things suffer nor let the "Universal Issue" play out.Essentially, this would involve displaying the future to all of the spirit creatures as to how things WOULD play out if God would allow it.And since HE "cannot lie", no one could question the vision he put on display as to whether it was true or not.Having established that the future would be bad if he didn't step in, the Universal Issue was as good as answered and he could then just destroy all disobedient ones right there in the garden and make new humans.

  Ultimately, I do not look at the story of Adam and Eve as one of truth, but as a concept.A morality tale if you will; and an attempted explanation of our current state.As a story it is full on many unknowable unknowns, contradictions, and ambiguities.And the God presented within it's framework, is in my opinion, worthy of neither worship nor respect.The current state of life on earth backs this up.But as an extension of the original title thread, and as was already discussed, the not yet conceived children of Adam and Eve (US) had a sentence pronounced upon them for actions for which they were not responsible and with which they had nothing to do.No amount of spin is going to justify that judgment.We will simply have to agree to disagree.
• 

  Terry

  Here you falsely suppose that babies are "good" enough to claim the right of eternal life. Again, a faulty premise that leads you to a wrong conclusion.

  In your belief system, then, there is a "right" to eternal life based on "good enough"?

  Or, is eternal life always a "gift" of God?

  Does "gift" mean free of charge or is there a special catch requiring some activity, profession or state of mind to ratify that "gift?"

  Did Adam or Eve have to EARN eternal life, or was that to be a GIFT?

  Did Jesus EARN his resurrection?

  How do you reconcile behavioral expectations as a provision to a free gift without the idea of "earning"? Or, do you need to?

  Humans who are forgiven and saved are, presumably, corrupt sinners. On what JUST basis are they given the UNEARNED gift of salvation___unless___there is a catch and they must DO something. (i.e. profess, believe, etc.)

  Are you able to clarify this for me? Hmmmm??
• 

  Perry

  On what JUST basis are they given the UNEARNED gift of salvation_

  Terry,

  A lot of people went to great lenghts a few weeks ago to explain the concept of mercy, gift, clemency etc, to you. You did not find a logical reason for it then, just as you do not now. It just doesn't make sense for you. That's cool.

  If you want to have another look at that subject, why don't you go review the dozens of posts on that thread where you ask the identical thing you ask here?
• 

  CandleLight

  Hi Perry,

  Candlelight,

  Let me clarify a bit. I do believe that God can put his spirit in whomever he chooses, even before Christ.... I just don't believe that it was offered as a option to "whosoever" (John 3: 16), until the Bood Covenant was offered to all mankind.

  I suppose my point was this. What was it that caused men to be able to live almost 1000 years? If we toss out the theory of "closer to perfection", for I feel it was God, not flesh, that gave life, we have to understand the scripture in Genesis 6 a bit different.

  As for recieving the Holy Spirit, it seems to me to be completely initated by the Father in the Hebrew scriptures. He found someone favorable to his eyes, or they found favor, and blessed them. Jesus tore down the wall of hostility and gave us the ability to do the following:

  Act 17:26

  And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, :27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, :28 for "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, "'For we are indeed his offspring.' :29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. :30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, :31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."

  Peace to you

  CL
• 

  Jringe01

  It was interesting reading this debate. While pouring over the various points one thing struck me as obvious: This debate is really being held in a vaccum because none of us have access to all the facts

  Moses is supposed to have written Genesis. How many thousands of years after the events in Eden did those words finally get committed to; quote unquote "paper". There is no way the entire text of the conversation would have survived. We do not have access to all the relevant information and there is no firm gaurantee that what Moses wrote wasn't corrupted somewhere down the line.

  And to clarify one more point: Based on what information we do have it is logical to conclude the death sentance was passed on Adam and Eve not because they "ate an apple" but because they disobeyed. There is no record of what fruit it actually was that they ate. The apple is a modern invention.