Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou 299 Replies latest watchtower bible

MeanMrMustard

It's an argument about internal consistency, it seems. For a moment, grant all the premises, suspend disbelief, and just read it as if it were a history book.
"The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
So, before eating the fruit, neither of them "knew", or "understood" good from evil. I think that it is safe to say that anyone that doesn't understand a distinction between "good" and "evil", doesn't know "right" from "wrong".
Assume God had many discussions with Adam about what to do, and what not to do. No matter what God said, Adam was incapable of understanding why he would refrain from any act at all.
For example, what's an "evil" act? What if someone were to violently torture and rape a baby? Seem pretty evil. Can you imagine being truthfully confused by the statement "you should not rape and torture a baby because it's wrong, its evil"?
Adam and Eve were basically psychopathic postmodernists.
In legal terms, Adam and Eve were not capable of having the mens rea to commit any "crime". They cant understand "crime" itself.
In short: By what mechanism did God expect Adam and Eve to do "the right thing"? And for what reason is the ultimate price appropriate or justified?
MeanMrMustard

Also, why is Satan a "master deceiver"? Seems like deceiving Adam and Eve would be like putting a bacon treat in front of a puppy...
Halcon

These are good questions mustard.
In legal terms, Adam and Eve were not capable of having the mens rea to commit any "crime". They cant understand "crime" itself.
Hence, the simplicity of the command.
It wasn't even about a single, isolated tree beckoning them. It was a garden. There were trees everywhere. All blending in and looking the same or similar perhaps.
In short: By what mechanism did God expect Adam and Eve to do "the right thing"? And for what reason is the ultimate price appropriate or justified?
If I'm understanding your question correctly, that mechanism was trust. Assuming that Adam and Eve were as ignorant as you propose, it would be trust. The scriptures tell us Adam deferred to God, knowing he was inferior to God, not equals. He knew that much...that God, by virtue of being 'superior' would know better.
The scripture also reveals that they understood that death, whatever that was, was not a desired thing. They had enough capacity to put not following God's command as equaling death, as equaling not a desired thing.
How do we know this? Because they had stayed away from that tree, until the snake shows up.
Also, why is Satan a "master deceiver"? Seems like deceiving Adam and Eve would be like putting a bacon treat in front of a puppy..
Here, one can say "but there was bacon everywhere else".
Wether satan is a master deceiver or not... well as you can see, many folks here couldn't point to the actual lie he told. In fact, they kept stating he told the absolute truth. I would say that takes some skill.
As for the ultimate price being justified. People of faith will always defer to God, always. People without faith, obviously never will.
blondie

I think Satan told the first lie based on the bible's account.
MeanMrMustard

Hence, the simplicity of the command.
So? The ability to understand the words, and the meaning of the words, is different than understanding the moral implications of the command. Without the knowledge of "good" and "evil", there is NO concept of "should" and "should not".
It wasn't even about a single, isolated tree beckoning them. It was a garden. There were trees everywhere. All blending in and looking the same or similar perhaps.
I'm not sure why that matters.
If I'm understanding your question correctly, that mechanism was trust. Assuming that Adam and Eve were as ignorant as you propose, it would be trust.
If someone doesn't know good from evil, does that person even know the difference between "truth" and "lie"? A lie a false statement made with an intent to deceive. Adam may know the difference between "correct" and "incorrect". But to Adam or Eve, a statement that contradicts God's statement had no malice in it. To them, they have no way to treat it other than new, updated info... new light, if you will. "Oh, you mean God was mistaken?"
You might counter that they shouldn't have believed or trusted anything anyone else said. But upon what basis do they have the ability to make that judgement? The idea that they are being deceived is derived from the knowledge of good and evil. If they are to "trust" God, then they would "distrust" others. What reason would they have to "distrust" others, except for the possibility they may be deceived, and that's beyond their ability to discern of even "know" at that moment.
The scriptures tell us Adam deferred to God, knowing he was inferior to God, not equals. He knew that much...that God, by virtue of being 'superior' would know better.
Ok. What do you mean by "better"?
The scripture also reveals that they understood that death, whatever that was, was not a desired thing. They had enough capacity to put not following God's command as equaling death, as equaling not a desired thing.
I don't think you understand how disabled they were, if they didn't know right from wrong. I refer to my paragraphs above.
As for the ultimate price being justified. People of faith will always defer to God, always. People without faith, obviously never will.
I don't think so. If a mentally retarded child takes a candy bar from a store, do we dole out the death penalty?
Halcon

So? The ability to understand the words, and the meaning of the words, is different than understanding the moral implications of the command. Without the knowledge of "good" and "evil", there is NO concept of "should" and "should not".
Which is precisely why the mechanism was trust.
The existence of other trees in the garden matters because it simplified the command even more.
You might counter that they shouldn't have believed or trusted anything anyone else said. But upon what basis do they have the ability to make that judgement? The idea that they are being deceived is derived from the knowledge of good and evil. If they are to "trust" God, then they would "distrust" others. What reason would they have to "distrust" others, except for the possibility they may be deceived, and that's beyond their ability to discern of even "know" at that moment.
Again, the command was extraordinarily simple. You make a good point that they didn't yet know good from evil at this juncture. But this just emphasized the importance of trust. For Adam to do exactly what you stated above, to understand the words and do accordingly with the words for no other reason than because his Creator told him to....versus doing according to the words of the snake, if for no other reason than because they were not like the words of God.
Ok. What do you mean by "better"?
Adam understood that he was not God. He understood that he didn't know how to create things, like God created the garden and his wife Eve. He understood that God knew how to manipulate energy better to accomplish creation. Because God knew these things better, God was superior. So he understood that God gave him instructions, and he followed them. He knew God was in charge. Adam understood he was subservient to God.
If a mentally retarded child takes a candy bar from a store, do we dole out the death penalty?
Adam was mentally capable enough to grasp he wasn't God and subsequently be subservient to him.Therefore, the command of staying away from that tree was further simplified by the fact that it would be just another manifestation of an existing and established pattern of obedience.
MeanMrMustard

A little known fact : based on other ancient manuscripts recently found, there was another recorded exchange between God and Adam sometime before the "tree" talk. It may shed light on the nature of the "lie" told here.

God: Hello Adam.

Adam: Hello. Beautiful day. Thanks for that.

God: No worries. You're welcome. But I wanted to talk to you for a moment about something you keep doing.

Adam: Sure. What's that?

God: Well, I can't help but notice, along with all the angels, that you tend to spend your day masterbating around the garden.

Adam: Yes. For sure. It's great. A hearty thanks for that too.

God: Yes. But you really shouldn't so that so much.

Adam: I shouldn't? What do you mean.

God: Well, it's not right.

Adam: Oh, am doing it incorrectly? There is a better way? Well, what is it? I would love to hear the right way.

God: No, no. That's not what I mean. I mean it's not an appropriate thing to do. That's all the angels are talking about.

Adam: What do you mean by "appropriate"? If I can do it, why wouldn't I?

God: Because it is not good.

Adam: Oh, it's pretty good. Have you ever done it? Do you know what it's like?

God: No, of course I haven't.

Adam: Really? I just thought you might do it now again since I was made in your image. I figure you had a well developed part ... well, maybe you've been missing out. Let me show you how it's done. First you grab it like this...

God: I know how it's done! Stop it.

Adam: Oh so you know what it's like. You must know, you know everything, right?

God: No it's not like that. I don't have that type of knowledge. I don't know what it is like experientially to do .... At least not for the next 7000 years or so.

Adam: What's that supposed to mean?

God: Nothing. Look, that's all you seem to do. The act itself is unclean and wrong.

Adam: Well, I don't know what you mean by "wrong". You said I was doing it "right", and I wash up in the garden stream quite often.

God: I want you to stop it.

Adam: But why?

God: You have to trust me that it's not a good act.

Adam: That's kinda... hard... to believe. Get it? Eh? I mean you are saying it's wrong, but I'm doing it "right"... and it feels super great. So, I don't know what you mean. Are you mistaken? Look, I can show it's good. Let me give you a demonst.....

God: I'm not mistaken! It's not moral to do.

Adam: What does "not moral" mean?

God: It means that it's evil. The opposite of good.

Adam: I see. Like stubbing my toe? That hurt. It was not good. Was it evil to stub my toe?

God: No that was just an accident.

Adam: So accidents are good? Or are they evil?

God: Neither... they are more neutral than anything.

Adam: I don't think I understand.

God: *sigh*.. Look, just don't do it. If you do you'll go blind, ok?

Adam: Blind?! That would be horrible. I like seeing.

God: Right. So there you go. Just stop or you'll go blind.

Adam: Sure thing. I'm going to go rape that goat now. TTYL.

God: No... wait... ugggg
joey jojo

Good points mustard.
The message I'm getting is that god expects obedience regardless of whether that person understands or not. Ok, fair enough so far.
Assuming Adam and Eve deserved their fate, where in the bible is the part that warns Adam and Eve that all of their descendants will be punished for their crime?
That might have been useful information to help them make a more informed decision.
Halcon

God: Well, I can't help but notice, along with all the angels, that you tend to spend your day masterbating around the garden.
Lol. Maybe this is why he was given a wife. Brilliant, even better.
Joey - Assuming Adam and Eve deserved their fate, where in the bible is the part that warns Adam and Eve that all of their descendants will be punished for their crime?
This is the same question as mustard's regarding the justification for the punishment. If you are a person of faith, it's justified.
joey jojo

Joey - Assuming Adam and Eve deserved their fate, where in the bible is the part that warns Adam and Eve that all of their descendants will be punished for their crime?
Halcon
This is the same question as mustard's regarding the justification for the punishment. If you are a person of faith, it's justified.

And there we have it.
No normal person would punish the descendants of a person in perpetuity because they disobeyed. This - and a lot of other reasons - is why people have trouble reconciling the bible with a loving god.

Who told the first lie?

Share this