Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou 299 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  TonusOH

  Halcon: This snake is good...

  I don't see a context in which the snake is good, at least as a counterbalance to god. In some contexts, the snake is neutral (if it represents Eve's inner dialogue, for example). In some, the snake is evil (as defined in the NT). Since the outcome of its actions is negative, there isn't a good option, IMO. Except, perhaps, as a warning.

  I think the focus on "who lied first" is a distraction (though it might make an interesting Abbott and Costello routine). Even as an allegorical tale, it implies that god withheld important understanding from mankind and left us to our own (uninformed) devices, then punished us for it. It reveals a part of Yahweh's nature that I think we can see throughout the Bible, but that makes for a very frightening character. He acts in a manner that is arbitrary and unpredictable. Since he cannot be held to a moral standard, he is capable of anything. And we are forced to accept this as a good thing.
• 

  Jeffro

  TonusOH:

  I don't see a context in which the snake is good, at least as a counterbalance to god.

  Indeed. It’s a particularly naive objection that if one is ‘bad’ in the story, then that must mean the other is ‘the good one’. Neither of them is ‘good’. It’s a co-opted story that has subsequently had its characters conflated with separate characterisations from other stories. Without the baggage of associating the god in the story with other notions about God, no one would consider either of them particularly nice.

  I think the focus on "who lied first" is a distraction

  To the extent that it’s just a story, that is true. But it is actually a key element when the baggage is stripped away. The story superimposes Yahweh, Adam and Eve into an adaptation of an older Babylonian story (and only later was Satan superimposed on the snake character). The god and the snake in the original story are more nuanced than just ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
• 

  Halcon

  Tonus -I don't see a context in which the snake is good, at least as a counterbalance to god.

  Hi tonus. My apologies for the confusion. Here, I was being sarcastic. I was referring to the statement jeffro made that it was God who had lied first.

  I was simply commenting on the efficiency of the snake to confuse and gaslight. However, I think jeffro was also at that point of the conversation also being just playful and sarcastic.
• 

  Halcon

  Tonus - I think the focus on "who lied first" is a distraction (though it might make an interesting Abbott and Costello routine). Even as an allegorical tale, it implies that god withheld important understanding from mankind and left us to our own (uninformed) devices, then punished us for it.

  Meanmustard brought up some good points regarding the very possible mental capacity of Adam and Eve at this juncture, which I believe further explains and justifies the simplicity of God's command to stay away from the tree of knowledge.

  The command was so simple and elementary so as to borderline on 'dumb'. Why did the snake insist on eating from this forbidden tree given all the circumstances? As mustard pointed out, Adam and Eve couldn't have fathomed the consequences of disobedience, since even the concept of 'death' was not clear to them...such was their lack of comprehension.

  Was it really about forbidding them from critical and life giving knowledge? Were they truly going to be a most miserable unhappy couple for being humble and trusting their Creator?

  It was the snake that felt what you described or implied tonus.
• 

  TonusOH

  Halcon: Were they truly going to be a most miserable unhappy couple for being humble and trusting their Creator?

  I am wondering if they had any reason to trust their creator, seeing as how he set them up for a failure that resonates thousands of years later. As an allegory, the lesson is clear: right and wrong are god's to determine. It's just poorly presented. I doubt that the intent was to promote the idea that ignorance is bliss, but it's an unavoidable conclusion. Or that god's perfect setup was undone by allowing humans to make their own decisions.

  It also brings up the question of how desireable free will is. If there is one path that makes us happy and prosperous, and every other path leads to misery and suffering, what good does it do us to have a choice? Aren't we better off only able to do the things that god wants?
• 

  Halcon

  Tonus -I doubt that the intent was to promote the idea that ignorance is bliss, but it's an unavoidable conclusion. Or that god's perfect setup was undone by allowing humans to make their own decisions.

  As a person of faith, I believe it's simply so that I may understand what happened, why things went south for mankind. The snake was clearly at fault in my opinion.

  It also brings up the question of how desireable free will is. If there is one path that makes us happy and prosperous, and every other path leads to misery and suffering, what good does it do us to have a choice?

  I agree that free will only goes so far. In the end, one is still subject to God's 'laws'. Saying I choose to not subject myself to God only to suffer hell or non-existence is really not much of a choice.

  The question is about humility. Will I recognize God as my creator and I am the creation, only human? That he is subsequently my eternal superior? Or will I refuse to accept that there is no other way and go down into non-existence.

  The snake apparently refused. And very likely lied to Adam and Eve simply out of spite.
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

  The snake was clearly at fault in my opinion.

  But that isn’t because of an honest examination of the story in isolation. It’s been drummed into your head which character is necessarily good no matter what, and the characters have been distorted by characterisations in other stories.
• 

  Halcon

  But that isn’t because of an honest examination of the story in isolation.

  The story ends with Adam dying, according to Genesis.

  The alternative, the story in isolation, would have been ongoing life for Adam...making love to his wife... making children....in a paradise... without struggle...
• 

  joey jojo

  Halcon
  The story ends with Adam dying, according to Genesis.

  Once again, I feel the need to point out that compared to his offspring, Adam didnt suffer too much.

  At first glance this story is a lesson about how our choices affect us. Maybe the real lesson is how our life choices affect others.
• 

  Jeffro

  Halcon:

  The alternative, the story in isolation, would have been ongoing life for Adam...making love to his wife... making children....in a paradise... without struggle...

  No, that isn’t indicated in the story. The story indicates that the god is capricious and deceptive. Who knows what else it would do to the naive unwitting people if they continued ignorant.