Did God Show Himself Insecure? (Garden Story)

[thomas t]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

 

[darkskies]

When I first read the story I thought God had other plans he was going to unveil which were ruined by them eating from the tree; hence the reaction. Otherwise they were just people being people.

It's kind of like how you would try to train animals to abstain from eating a smaller treat in order to build their patience and discipline and then they'd get a bigger treat as reward. Just my thoughts.

 

[viole]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

Well, my main critique is the following: why did God create Woman in His image, and what does it mean?

We have two cases:

1) God Himself has human physical characteristics. Which we can exclude, since it would be absurd to say that God is also an Ape
2) The "image" is intended as "intellectual". But if that is the case, what is really intended if He did not want us to acquire what He already knows? And how could He expect that beings in His image would not do anything to acquire that knowledge they have been prevented to acquire? Wouldn't have He done the same?

In what sense were we, before eating that apple, are in His image then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[darkskies]

Well, my main critique is the following: why did God create Woman in His image, and what does it mean?

We have two cases:

1) God Himself has human physical characteristics. Which we can exclude, since it would be absurd to say that God is also an Ape
2) The "image" is intended as "intellectual". But if that is the case, what is really intended if He did not want us to acquire what He already knows? And how could He expect that beings in His image would not do anything to acquire that knowledge they have been prevented to acquire? Wouldn't have He done the same?

In what sense were we, before eating that apple, in His image then?

Ciao

- viole

Maybe it just means an image he had in his mind; something he thought would be nice. "Image" as in a thought about how they should look. And it would be "His".

 

[Subduction Zone]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

Your analogy does not work. You forgot about part of.the myth. Adam and Eve lacked the knowledge of right and wrong. They did not fully understand what they did wrong until after they ate the fruit. If you invited small children to your tea party that did not understand why they could not eat certain things In hope that you would not put those things in easy reach and then leave the room.

When one reads the entire myth God.was at fault.

 

[danieldemol]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

Well I'm no atheist, but I do disbelieve in the Bible.

You seem to have whether or not one should follow a polite request confused with what the motive/(s) are behind that request.

Of course a person could ask you not to play the instrument in the centre of the room because they are insecure that you might show them up by playing better than them. Sure it is still polite to do as requested and not play the instrument without their permission, but that doesn't change their motive.

Likewise the Biblical God could have been motivated by insecurity not to share knowledge, and whilst you would be polite not to eat of a fruit as requested, this does not reflect on the motives of the God in question in the slightest.

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting that the Biblical God is insecure, just pointing out the obvious fault in your apologetic in my opinion.

 

[thomas t]

2) The "image" is intended as "intellectual". But if that is the case, what is really intended if He did not want us to acquire what He already knows? [...]
In what sense were we, before eating that apple, are in His image then?

Ah thank you, that's a good point.

While I don't have an answer, I can only hypothesize: Knoweldge is not a key factor of God's character.
I see him as an artist, (btw I also want to be an artist): artists often know some things but that's not what they are known for.
Man or Woman is a model of God perhaps, and in order to get a model you need to leave certain details out, otherwise it would be a copy which would encompass too many details in this case.

Just for your consideration, I recently read a post by @KenS and he says man (or Woman) also has spirit, body and soul just like the trinity. Maybe that's what's meant.

 

[thomas t]

just for clarification about the type of knowledge that the tree of knowledge was to convey. It's the tree of knowledge of "good and evil".
The word used for evil can mean evil in a sense of "bad" or evil in a sense of "wrong" - morally wrong.
See discussion here: EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

or you may want to take a look at the Hebrew word itself:


Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity

 

[Valjean]

As Subduction Zone points out, you're assuming Adam and Eve were born pre-socialized, with knowledge of proper behavior and right and wrong. The scripture, though, seems to indicate otherwise; that pre-fruit, they'd have been like animals or little children; innocent of concepts like guest and host, rules, ownership, duty, obedience, &c.
Blaming someone ignorant of the concept of obedience for disobedience seems, at best, injust.

This, however, doesn't imply divine insecurity. I do see indications of insecurity in the scriptures -- jealousy, competitiveness, vindictiveness, cruelty, and obsessiveness -- but the story of Adam and Eve's disobedience and fall is not the best example of these.

 

[thomas t]

As Subduction Zone points out, you're assuming Adam and Eve were born pre-socialized, with knowledge of proper behavior and right and wrong. The scripture, though, seems to indicate otherwise; that pre-fruit, they'd have been like animals or little children; innocent of concepts like guest and host, rules, ownership, duty, obedience, &c.
Blaming someone ignorant of the concept of obedience for disobedience seems, at best, unjust.

This, however, doesn't imply divine insecurity. I do see indications of insecurity in the scriptures -- jealousy, competitiveness, vindictiveness, cruelty, and obsessiveness -- but the story of Adam and Eve's disobedience and fall is not the best example of these.

ah thank you for replying.
However, if you want to accuse God... please provide the evidence that knowledge of good and evil actually menas knowledge of right and wrong.
You may want to look at the Hebrew word for evil as linked in #8 for translation.

One thing is sure, they did have knowledge, before.

Before they ate from the tree... God brought the animals to Adam to see how he would name them.* If you don't have any knowledge whatsoever, you can't name animals.
This is at least my interpretation of the activity of naming things.


Being able to name things does not necessarily imply anything concerning knowing right from wrong though.
However, the onus is on the side that accuses to bolster their view, as I see it.

* Genesis 2:19

 

[Stevicus]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

Maybe it was some kind of set up or sting operation. If you're planning on having a party and you're worried about the guests possibly touching something you don't want them to touch, why put it that thing out in the open? Why invite a guest you know to be a troublemaker who could possibly induce one or more guests to touch the forbidden thing you don't want them to touch?

 

[thomas t]

Maybe it was some kind of set up or sting operation. If you're planning on having a party and you're worried about the guests possibly touching something you don't want them to touch, why put it that thing out in the open? Why invite a guest you know to be a troublemaker who could possibly induce one or more guests to touch the forbidden thing you don't want them to touch?

believe me: I love mainstream theology.
But there is one rule that should come first: Bible only.
God's omniscience is mainstream theology.
If mainstream theology cannot support their views by scripture, their point might be right, or not.

This is the case with omniscience, I mean God's purported all-time omniscience.
As I see it, you cannot read one verse claiming God to be omniscient, but you cannot deduce it from other verses, either.

So if you want to accuse God using his purported pre-knowledge of what would happen... the onus is on you to show that God, according to the Bible, is omnicscient, indeed.
I must admit, many Christians - maybe 90+% - do think that God is omniscient. This does not show this to be truth, though.

 

[Stevicus]

believe me: I love mainstream theology.
But there is one rule that should come first: Bible only.
God's omniscience is mainstream theology.
If mainstream theology cannot support their views by scripture, their point might be right, or not.

This is the case with omniscience, I mean God's purported all-time omniscience.
As I see it, you cannot read one verse claiming God to be omniscient, but you cannot deduce it from other verses, either.

So if you want to accuse God using his purported pre-knowledge of what would happen... the onus is on you to show that God, according to the Bible, is omnicscient, indeed.
I must admit, many Christians - maybe 90+% - do think that God is omniscient. This does not show this to be truth, though.

For me personally, all of this is hypothetical, including the existence of God Himself. As an agnostic, I can honestly say that I don't know if there is any such entity as "God" or not. Scriptures don't really prove anything. But just for fun, I did find an article which appears to provide extensive scriptural support to the idea that God is omniscient: What Does it Mean That God Is Omniscient? (christianity.com)

A few examples (although the article cites many more):

“Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit.” Psalm 147:5

“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.” Proverbs 15:3

“Lord, you have searched me and know me!

You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.

You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.” Psalm 139:1-3

 

[Subduction Zone]

ah thank you for replying.
However, if you want to accuse God... please provide the evidence that knowledge of good and evil actually menas knowledge of right and wrong.
You may want to look at the Hebrew word for evil as linked in #8 for translation.

One thing is sure, they did have knowledge, before.

Before they ate from the tree... God brought the animals to Adam to see how he would name them.* If you don't have any knowledge whatsoever, you can't name animals.
This is at least my interpretation of the activity of naming things.


Being able to name things does not necessarily imply anything concerning knowing right from wrong though.
However, the onus is on the side that accuses to bolster their view, as I see it.

* Genesis 2:19

And in Genesis 3 we see the confirmation of my claim. As soon as they ate they were aware of a very minor "wrong". Adam and Eve knew that they were naked. But who was to see that cared? They were supposedly husband and wife so them seeing each other naked was no big deal. God had made them and was thought to be omniscient so their nakedness would have no effect on him. It was a non-sin and yet they understood that very tiny wrong. If you want to accept the myth you need to accept the entire myth.

 

[Nimos]

one poster hypothesized that God was a little insecure, because it was knowledge being conveyed to A&E in case of eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Is the rule to not eat that fruit, a sign of insecurity or bad motives?

When you are invited to a garden party and host asks you to not eat the stuff in the middle of the fridge/ sit on the (non-removable) chair in the middle of the garden, don't play the instrument in the middle of the living room... no problem I suggest.

But when God does anything of this sort... it becomes a sign of insecurity or even bad motives as one poster suggested?

When I am invited and asked to not use 1 item in the location, I simply don't ask for the motives behind this. I stick to the rules. That's all. That's the minimum standard of what politeness can require, wouldn't you agree?

I'm referring to the latest A&E thread EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity! but that one was a bit long for me, so I'd like to start a new one on this particular aspect.

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Thomas

I think the reason most atheists criticise it, is because it tries to convey some things as being morally justified when its not.

The problem as I see it, is that a lot believers tend to side with God as acting in justice and that Adam and Eve are the ones that did something wrong.

You make an example to illustrate how you understand the story, which is you being invited to a party and follow the rules of the host and that it is what one should do. Most atheists and even those of other religious view would agree with you, its not like atheists when invited home to someone go all rebel and just do what they want

Where these comparisons go wrong, is that God is the creator, not just of the party, but everything, even his guests. So if you want to make such comparison and be able to judge it, you would have to put yourself outside the party looking over the fence.

So this is more like how the party would look from that perspective.

God create a garden and all around it, he places bowls of very tasty dog food, but in the middle of it he places the best bowl of them all. Then he create two dogs, which doesn't understand right from wrong, as God didn't give them such abilities and then tells them that they can go nuts in garden, but are not allowed to eat from the big tasty bowl in the middle. And not to forget, before he goes into the house, he created a nasty snake which doesn't like him and put him in the garden with the dogs... then he leaves. The snake not likely God, instantly try to screw up the dogs, which is not really difficult given that they have no clue who it is, or why it should do anything bad towards them. So they eat from the bowl and God gets so angry that they ruined his garden party, that he throws them out and condemn, not only them but all their cubs to an eternal punishment of hard work, pain and death. While punishing the bad snake with being what it already is.

Looking over the fence from the outside, either God did it on purpose or is extremely ignorant. And that is not even taking into account that he knows everything, so already when creating the party, he knew that the dogs would eat from that very bowl and that his party would be ruined. So it's nothing like you or me, being invited to a friends party, which is why I think a lot of atheists tend to criticise it.

 

[stvdv]

Atheists tend to criticize this story a lot, so I thought I'd make it a topic.

Atheists criticizing this story??? That sounds strange to me. They are Atheists defining Atheism as "I lack belief in God(s)", but then continue with "I believe that God feels a little insecure" when reading this "tree story". This feels odd to me. But I believe miracles do exist (but such would be a huge one)

 

[Kenny]

Ah thank you, that's a good point.

While I don't have an answer, I can only hypothesize: Knoweldge is not a key factor of God's character.
I see him as an artist, (btw I also want to be an artist): artists often know some things but that's not what they are known for.
Man or Woman is a model of God perhaps, and in order to get a model you need to leave certain details out, otherwise it would be a copy which would encompass too many details in this case.

Just for your consideration, I recently read a post by @KenS and he says man (or Woman) also has spirit, body and soul just like the trinity. Maybe that's what's meant.

Thanks for the invite @thomas t - though I am not totally up on the thought given here (context)

Could you expand on this thought? (Never mind... I will read from the beginning)

 

[Audie]

Maybe it just means an image he had in his mind; something he thought would be nice. "Image" as in a thought about how they should look. And it would be "His".

As usual the book means whatever you choose.

 

[Audie]

Atheists criticizing this story??? That sounds strange to me. They are Atheists defining Atheism as "I lack belief in God(s)", but then continue with "I believe that God feels a little insecure" when reading this "tree story". This feels odd to me. But I believe miracles do exist (but such would be a huge one)

Actually it is very simple.
God is a character in a novel.
Analyzing fictional characters is a thing.

And prolly a lot more objective if you
understand that it's fiction.

 

[thomas t]

But just for fun, I did find an article which appears to provide extensive scriptural support to the idea that God is omniscient: What Does it Mean That God Is Omniscient? (christianity.com)

A few examples (although the article cites many more):
1) “Great is our Lord and mighty in power; His understanding has no limit.” Psalm 147:5


2) “The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.” Proverbs 15:3

3) “Lord, you have searched me and know me!

4) You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar.

5) You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways.” Psalm 139:1-3

So let me show you that neither of the points implies omniscience, as I see it:
1) no limit does not mean all-embracing. If I have a flat rate on my phone, this does not mean that I use it all the time...
If I can go visit all cities in Germany, that does not mean I actually do so...

2) it's the version, as I see it: Note that the "are" is added. It's not there in the original text, so that the verse could also come across as "The eyes of the Lord ... in every place... keeping watch on the evil and the good." *
In this case, the eyes of the Lord keep watch on a certain aspect of things.

3)-5)... might refer to an indiviual persen.

So here we see: no proof for God's omnicience in these 5 verses.

* follow this link to get the picture of the Hebrew verse: Proverbs 15:3 Interlinear: In every place are the eyes of Jehovah, Watching the evil and the good.