Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Do you think Eve is more guilty than Adam, considering that she was the one to initially sin? It seems to me that this would inherently be the case.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Eve more guilty than Adam
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I do not believe in any Semitic religion, so the story of Adam and Eve holds no meaning to me, and I most certainly do not take it literally.
However, I would not believe that Eve was 'more guilty' than Adam either way: Eve did not initially sin out of her free will, did she? She was coerced into disobeying God by a crafty serpent, according to the story, right?
Would it be just for her to be guilty of sin because of something she was lured into? To me, this would not be the case.
My $0.02.
However, I would not believe that Eve was 'more guilty' than Adam either way: Eve did not initially sin out of her free will, did she? She was coerced into disobeying God by a crafty serpent, according to the story, right?
Would it be just for her to be guilty of sin because of something she was lured into? To me, this would not be the case.
My $0.02.
What makes you think he knew what they would do?
Splarnst
Active Member
Omniscience. Or, failing that, mere common sense.
God isn't Omniscient. One example to suggest this is to look at his dealings with Abraham who was put to the test by killing his son. When he was about to do it, why did God interfere and say "Now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me....?
Would God have made that statement if he knew in advance that Abraham would obey this command?
My view is this. I believe God has the *capability* to know everything, but he chooses not to. To suggest he knew what Adam and Eve would do paints him as the originator of sin and not Satan and also deliberately responsible for all human suffering...a true contrast to a God of love.
Splarnst
Active Member
So you believe. Many disagree with you.
How would that make him any less culpable? If I close my eyes while I drive—i.e., I choose not to know what I'm doing—am I any less guilty of involuntary manslaughter if I hit and kill a kid who runs into the street?
Ah but therein lies the problem. They were the first human pair and there was nothing to gauge their actions on because of a clean slate. He created them with free will and choose NOT to know how they would use it. You however already know driving while your eyes closed is wrong so it's impossible to choose to not know the outcome of such an action.
Another good example is King Saul. Since God is perfect in every sense of the word, it's impossible for him to make a mistake yet he quoted saying he regretted make Saul king: "I do regret that I have caused Saul to reign as king, because he has turned back from following me, and my words he has not carried out"-1 Samuel 15:11
Here he wasn't suggesting a mistake had been made, but rather he was expressing sorrow that Saul turned out to be faithless and disobedient. Using such an expression in referring to himself would be nonsensical if he had foreknown Sauls actions.
Splarnst
Active Member
God created the tree, knowing it was dangerous to humans. God knew humans had the ability to eat from the tree. Therefore, God knew that humans might eat from the tree. It doesn't require any past experience with human nature at all. We're talking mere possibilities. Even below average humans can figure out what might happen.
Besides, God doesn't have to know which bad thing will happen; all he has to know is that something bad could happen. Please don't respond that since God had never created a universe before, so he couldn't have known that anything at all bad might ever happen when he turned off his knowledge. Such a being would be so ignorant that the label "god" shouldn't even apply.
Willful ignorance is never an excuse. Not even when it's God.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Dude, the snake was the only honest creature in that entire story.
Everyone else lied manipulated, and betrayed, everyone else in the story.
The serpent did what he said he`d top and all his statements turned out to be truth.
The way I understand it, Adam was more guilty; specifically, it was he who had been told not to eat of the forbidden fruit.
Eve was beguiled by the serpent (a creature that shuns humans) - that way Satan thought that Eve could be fooled, because she would be unaware that snakes do not speak. When Eve gave Adam the apple, he was the one who knew full well that he should not eat of the tree - in that scenario, he was the one who "crossed" God..........
(From a "sola scriptura" POV..................
Eve was beguiled by the serpent (a creature that shuns humans) - that way Satan thought that Eve could be fooled, because she would be unaware that snakes do not speak. When Eve gave Adam the apple, he was the one who knew full well that he should not eat of the tree - in that scenario, he was the one who "crossed" God..........
(From a "sola scriptura" POV..................
The problem wasn't the tree though. It's going against their creators direct commands...which is what they did. The tree was a way from them to demonstrate their love and appreciation for all he had done for them and as Grand Creator he had every right to make it. As long as they refrained from the single ONE tree they were permitted to eat from, they would have remained in good standards.
I'm sure when he created angels (who existed way before the earth) he had no idea one of them would rebel.
The serpent told they wouldn't die. Are they around today? Nope. Why? Because they're dead lol.
God has no use for magical trees, so the only reason it could have possibly existed there was as a temptation.
Normally, if an authority figure deliberately leaves a temptation for someone to engage in a criminal activity it's called entrapment; and it's considered unethical and illegal for a reason.
Normally, if an authority figure deliberately leaves a temptation for someone to engage in a criminal activity it's called entrapment; and it's considered unethical and illegal for a reason.
1. I disagree. It was done for them to express their appreciation and their love.
2. Copied from Wikipedia on the definition of entrapment:
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
- The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
- Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
- The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.
1. They were fine before the serpent said anything, so the idea actually came from snake.
2.They weren't persuaded by God, but rather the snake.
3. Again no one knows the exact amount of time after he forbade them to eat from it they disobeyed, but I maintain it wasn't until the serpent said anything they were even remotely interested in it.