God screwed Adam and Eve

[dorsk188]

Imagine you're Adam (or Eve, take your pick). You've been prancing around, naming animals, living in the bliss of Eden for many years. Then you look at that tree... You're presented with a choice.

You eat the fruit, and gain the knowledge of good and evil.
You don't eat the fruit, and go about your business.

Did you eat the fruit? I hope not. God told you not to. If you didn't eat the fruit, you wake up the next day, prance around a bit and then...

Same choice. Day after day. Year after year. Eternity after eternity. You cannot die. Every day, you are presented that same choice, again and again.

The truth is, if the Eden story were true, Adam had no choice. Forget temptation by serpents. Forget omniscience. Logic tells you that given infinity and no escape, Adam would eventually eat the fruit.

He could either eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. The Genesis Program had an extra GOTO 10 line. There was no exit except by disobeying God. Adam would still be alive today, pondering that damned fruit, and would go on pondering forever, if he had the discipline.

[God] puts an apple tree in the middle of [the Garden of Eden] and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don't eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting "Gotcha." It wouldn't have made any difference if they hadn't eaten it...Because if you're dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won't give up. They'll get you in the end.- Douglas Adams

Some have rationalized this (as the LDS seems to have) by saying that this was "all part of the plan". But why, if Adam was following God's secret plan, do we need to be forgiven?

(Sorry to spam that image, but I thought it would help me make my point.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Imagine you're Adam (or Eve, take your pick). You've been prancing around, naming animals, living in the bliss of Eden for many years. Then you look at that tree... You're presented with a choice.

You eat the fruit, and gain the knowledge of good and evil.
You don't eat the fruit, and go about your business.

Did you eat the fruit? I hope not. God told you not to. If you didn't eat the fruit, you wake up the next day, prance around a bit and then...

Same choice. Day after day. Year after year. Eternity after eternity. You cannot die. Every day, you are presented that same choice, again and again.

The truth is, if the Eden story were true, Adam had no choice. Forget temptation by serpents. Forget omniscience. Logic tells you that given infinity and no escape, Adam would eventually eat the fruit.

He could either eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. The Genesis Program had an extra GOTO 10 line. There was no exit except by disobeying God. Adam would still be alive today, pondering that damned fruit, and would go on pondering forever, if he had the discipline.

Only if he was never meant to eat the fruit eventually.

Some have rationalized this (as the LDS seems to have) by saying that this was "all part of the plan". But why, if Adam was following God's secret plan, do we need to be forgiven?

Do we? I don't recall that being part of the story.

(Sorry to spam that image, but I thought it would help me make my point.)

Only to those who have seen Total Recall.

 

[Watchmen]

Some have rationalized this (as the LDS seems to have) by saying that this was "all part of the plan". But why, if Adam was following God's secret plan, do we need to be forgiven?

Because whether it was part of the plan or not, it was disobedience to God and it brought sin and death into the world. Because God knew this would happen, he provided a Savior for us.

Using your Matrix analogy, if Adam and Eve had not taken the fruit, they would have lived forever in ignorance. However, because they did take the fruit, they (and everyone after) had the potential to become the ONE - to become like God.

 

[God4me]

It was a set-up from the beginning; God knew Adam would eat the apple yet he still put the tree in the garden.

No He didn't.

 

[Hitchey]

The truth is, if the Eden story were true, Adam had no choice. Forget temptation by serpents. Forget omniscience. Logic tells you that given infinity and no escape, Adam would eventually eat the fruit.

He could either eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow. The Genesis Program had an extra GOTO 10 line. There was no exit except by disobeying God. Adam would still be alive today, pondering that damned fruit, and would go on pondering forever, if he had the discipline.

Excellent post! I never quite thought of it like this before. Very clever.

 

[Hitchey]

Huh. Didn't know there was a Junior Kindergarten.

... and a senior (SK).

 

[Hitchey]

Because whether it was part of the plan or not, it was disobedience to God and it brought sin and death into the world. Because God knew this would happen, he provided a Savior for us.

Using your Matrix analogy, if Adam and Eve had not taken the fruit, they would have lived forever in ignorance. However, because they did take the fruit, they (and everyone after) had the potential to become the ONE - to become like God.

This raises a few interesting questions. Without taking the fruit would Adam and Eve have botherered to procreate? I know the Old Testament says to be fruitful and multiply, but but if there was multiplication without death, and if animals and humans ate only plants (as some radical Christians would have us believe) the animals in the world would quickly have eaten themselves to starvation. How do you explain this?

The point Dorsk188 made was that eternity lasts a long time. Would Adam and Eve forever have ignored the fruit at the centre of the garden? After a million years, even without the serpent's intervention, would they have forgotten the prohibition? God with his infinant wisdom and ability to know the future would forsee the consequence of placing the forbidden fruit within easy reach. He is responsible for the indiscretion. He knew it would happen. Placing that tree at the centre of the garden can only be seen as an act of sabatoge to blame the victim for her inevitable failure.

 

[Hitchey]

No He didn't.

You are saying God was unable to see into the future or he didn't bother looking?

 

[Watchmen]

This raises a few interesting questions. Without taking the fruit would Adam and Eve have botherered to procreate? I know the Old Testament says to be fruitful and multiply, but but if there was multiplication without death, and if animals and humans ate only plants (as some radical Christians would have us believe) the animals in the world would quickly have eaten themselves to starvation. How do you explain this?

From the LDS perspective, Adam and Eve did not bother to procreate.

As to the rest of your post, are you saying the animals would have procreated to the point where there was no longer enough plant-life to sustain them?

 

[Hitchey]

From the LDS perspective, Adam and Eve did not bother to procreate.

I believe that humans and animals both procreate not as a result of instinct but because of pleasure. It is pleasure the causes the animal and the human to engage in the sexual act. In this humans and animals are the same. If Adam and Eve never engaged in sex before Eve gave Adam a bite it is because neither had sexual drive. They dawned fig leaves in the garden when God came walking because it was not till then that they were made aware of sexuality. This conflicts with the original command to procreate. What we have here in Genesis are two ancient myths that have been combined by an ancient editor into a single story. (see: Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible).

As to the rest of your post, are you saying the animals would have procreated to the point where there was no longer enough plant-life to sustain them?

Yes. The claim is often made that before The Fall all life was vegitarian.

 

[Humanistheart]

Because whether it was part of the plan or not, it was disobedience to God and it brought sin and death into the world. Because God knew this would happen, he provided a Savior for us. .

Which brings us back to the OP that god screwed adam and eve over. He dilerberatly set up a system in which creatures he created would do something that he then claimed he had the right to punish them for, and it gives him the chance to play savior when a better system would have prevented this. No messiah was neccesary for te removal of 'sin'. So god either has this messiah complex, or just didn't think things through very well.

Using your Matrix analogy, if Adam and Eve had not taken the fruit, they would have lived forever in ignorance. However, because they did take the fruit, they (and everyone after) had the potential to become the ONE - to become like God.

Again, this ignores the issue at hand. If this is part of god's plan, why punish them for it? Death didn't have to be introduced into the world as a result of eating fruit. This was not caused by the act of eating fruit, rather in this story this is caused by god. Adam and eve did not cause this. And as for the inroduction of sin, given that sin is not a matter of ethics or right and wrong, but merely anything god doesn't like, sin itself is an unethical concept, and in many cases it's a good thing to 'sin'.

Children usually end up surpassing their parents at some point. If this god was real I'd say humans surpassed him ethically many years ago, and would have done so sooner if not for this god's interference.

 

[Watchmen]

I believe that humans and animals both procreate not as a result of instinct but because of pleasure. It is pleasure the causes the animal and the human to engage in the sexual act. In this humans and animals are the same. If Adam and Eve never engaged in sex before Eve gave Adam a bite it is because neither had sexual drive. They dawned fig leaves in the garden when God came walking because it was not till then that they were made aware of sexuality. This conflicts with the original command to procreate. What we have here in Genesis are two ancient myths that have been combined by an ancient editor into a single story. (see: Richard Elliott Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible).

Actually, from the LDS perspective, God gave them conflicting commandments so that the Fall could happen and progression begin. It was completely intentional on God's part.

Yes. The claim is often made that before The Fall all life was vegitarian.

Yes - I believe most LDS believe this as well. My personal opinion is either (1) the story is a myth meant to teach Truth and shouldn't be taken literally so it doesn't really matter what they were eating; or (2) the Garden was in a "bubble" of sorts, cut off from the rest of the earth and in this "bubble" there was sufficient vegitation to support animal-life OR animals in the "bubble" did not procreate.

 

[Humanistheart]

Actually, from the LDS perspective, God gave them conflicting commandments so that the Fall could happen and progression begin. It was completely intentional on God's part..

God purposely tricked them and then punished them for it. You don't see anything wrong about that?

 

[Watchmen]

Which brings us back to the OP that god screwed adam and eve over. He dilerberatly set up a system in which creatures he created would do something that he then claimed he had the right to punish them for, and it gives him the chance to play savior when a better system would have prevented this. No messiah was neccesary for te removal of 'sin'. So god either has this messiah complex, or just didn't think things through very well.

He didn't implement the Plan for Himself - he did it for us. He didn't screw Adam and Eve - he blessed them with opportunity and progression. The Fall and progression and Savior were necessary for us - not Him. We need this experience. In fact, it was Satan's plan to implement a system that would have prevented sin and the need for a savior, but we would not have progressed. This is the LDS perspective.

Again, this ignores the issue at hand. If this is part of god's plan, why punish them for it? Death didn't have to be introduced into the world as a result of eating fruit. This was not caused by the act of eating fruit, rather in this story this is caused by god. Adam and eve did not cause this. And as for the inroduction of sin, given that sin is not a matter of ethics or right and wrong, but merely anything god doesn't like, sin itself is an unethical concept, and in many cases it's a good thing to 'sin'.

Children usually end up surpassing their parents at some point. If this god was real I'd say humans surpassed him ethically many years ago, and would have done so sooner if not for this god's interference.

Having the opportunity to learn the differences between good and evil, virtue and vice, pleasure and pain, and so on, so that I might become like God someday is not a punishment, IMO.

Using the Matrix example, was it punishment for Neo to learn the truth or did it free his mind?

 

[Humanistheart]

He didn't implement the Plan for Himself - he did it for us. He didn't screw Adam and Eve - he blessed them with opportunity and progression. The Fall and progression and Savior were necessary for us - not Him. We need this experience. In fact, it was Satan's plan to implement a system that would have prevented sin and the need for a savior, but we would not have progressed. This is the LDS perspective.?

I've always enjoyed and admired the lds concept that a human might progress to the level of a god (I realize that's not entirely the correct way to put it, but anyway) however, I see no reason that 'sin' is inherently wrong, nor any reason that a 'savior' would be necessary in this model. I would agree with you that The Fall would be necessary for progression, particularly in the lds model, but this still ignores the unethical nature of punishing adam and eve for something that was sopposed to happen. If the fall is good, then the actions taken that lead to said fall would be neccessary, and in fact good. Plus, why call it the Fall, if it's good? Fall implies something bad.

Having the opportunity to learn the differences between good and evil, virtue and vice, pleasure and pain, and so on, so that I might become like God someday is not a punishment, IMO.

No, but toiling in the ground, death, and pain in childbirth are punishments, not to mention crawling on ones belly for the rest of time. And why fruit? God couldn't have given people the ability to know good from evil when he created them? Is he not all powerful? Or perhaps he just didn't think things through.

Using the Matrix example, was it punishment for Neo to learn the truth or did it free his mind?

It indeed free'd his mind. But this is an entirely different situation, and not really what we're talking about. Humans free'd neo, another human, from machine controll; machine's humans created no less.

I might ask you, if you reach the level where you will go on and create a world with your spouse, would you set up a system that required one of your children to die because your other children are doing things you don't like on the planet you created for them? Or would you find a better way? If you think you would duplicate the system you believe is in effect for us, I would wonder why? If your children were doing things you don't like, why would you accept the death of one child to make up for the displeasure your other children are causing you? And why would you feel your personal displeasure should be their problem?

 

[Watchmen]

I've always enjoyed and admired the lds concept that a human might progress to the level of a god (I realize that's not entirely the correct way to put it, but anyway) however, I see no reason that 'sin' is inherently wrong, nor any reason that a 'savior' would be necessary in this model. I would agree with you that The Fall would be necessary for progression, particularly in the lds model, but this still ignores the unethical nature of punishing adam and eve for something that was sopposed to happen. If the fall is good, then the actions taken that lead to said fall would be neccessary, and in fact good. Plus, why call it the Fall, if it's good? Fall implies something bad.

If you see no reason why "sin" is inherently wrong then we don't have a common basis from which to continue the discussion. As for the term the "fall" - it references a fall from the presence of God.

No, but toiling in the ground, death, and pain in childbirth are punishments, not to mention crawling on ones belly for the rest of time. And why fruit? God couldn't have given people the ability to know good from evil when he created them? Is he not all powerful? Or perhaps he just didn't think things through.

Is there a distinction between punishment and consequences? I see the things you mention as a consequence.

Could God have given people the ability to know good from evil when he created them? I suppose so. But like I said before, this is for our benefit - not His. There must be something to this experience that's beneficial for us. It's like getting shots. You might not like it, but it's good for you.

It indeed free'd his mind. But this is an entirely different situation, and not really what we're talking about. Humans free'd neo, another human, from machine controll; machine's humans created no less.

The point is one could live in ignorance or when could learn some bitter truths and start progressing.

I might ask you, if you reach the level where you will go on and create a world with your spouse, would you set up a system that required one of your children to die because your other children are doing things you don't like on the planet you created for them? Or would you find a better way? If you think you would duplicate the system you believe is in effect for us, I would wonder why? If your children were doing things you don't like, why would you accept the death of one child to make up for the displeasure your other children are causing you? And why would you feel your personal displeasure should be their problem?

This goes to the concepts of Justice and Mercy. God's plan allows for both. Further - "sin" is not the only death that keeps us from God. Physical death does too and the Resurrection was necessary to overcome that. We can't implement the resurrection on our own - a Savior was necessary.

 

[Humanistheart]

If you see no reason why "sin" is inherently wrong then we don't have a common basis from which to continue the discussion..

Then perhaps you'd like to provide some justification to explain why 'sin' is a problem, or bad. Or at least provide your personal definition of sin.

As for the term the "fall" - it references a fall from the presence of God.

So god is not ever present for you? What happened to him being all powerful?

Is there a distinction between punishment and consequences? I see the things you mention as a consequence. .

True, and an important distinction to note, but these consequences were hardly necessary.

Could God have given people the ability to know good from evil when he created them? I suppose so. But like I said before, this is for our benefit - not His. There must be something to this experience that's beneficial for us. It's like getting shots. You might not like it, but it's good for you.

I'm sorry, how is the concept of revealing good and evil through fruit analogious to flu shots? And how is this beneficial? Creating a confusing story that serves as a deterent for any logical person learning of this is benificial when an easier non-contradictory way could have been used?.

The point is one could live in ignorance or when could learn some bitter truths and start progressing.

Which one could do in any number of ways. Why did fruit have to be involved?

This goes to the concepts of Justice and Mercy. God's plan allows for both. .

How? Why?

Further - "sin" is not the only death that keeps us from God. .

Sin is not death, and I fail to see how death could keep one from god. If anything it should bring you closer as your leaving this world and going to one closer to this god.

Physical death does too and the Resurrection was necessary to overcome that. .

See previous comment. Also, Why and how was this ressurrection necesssary to overcome physical death?

We can't implement the resurrection on our own - a Savior was necessary.

Why would a 'savior' be necessary?

What about death and 'ressurection' do you see as necessary? Is your god not all powerful? Is death a force that your god can't deal with himself, he needs one of his children to take care of it for him? If you haven't noticed, this messiah of yours has already come and gone and people are still dieing the same as before he came.

Again, I'll ask you, what part of the concept that a good son must die for his siblings to appease their father works for you? Is this what you want to see in the world you'll create, the suffering of your son? And how would your son suffering and dieing appease you?

 

[dorsk188]

Because whether it was part of the plan or not, it was disobedience to God and it brought sin and death into the world. Because God knew this would happen, he provided a Savior for us.

Granting your interpretation (which is far afield of the original intent of the story), you are still saying that people were disobeying. If God intended for people to eat, then if would not have been disobedience. God is setting up a no-win situation for Adam. Disobey my words (according to my plan) or Obey my words (which is impossible because it's part of my plan). It was also impossible because...

Using your Matrix analogy, if Adam and Eve had not taken the fruit, they would have lived forever in ignorance. However, because they did take the fruit, they (and everyone after) had the potential to become the ONE - to become like God.

You don't understand "forever", do you? Adam could not die, and could not leave. I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "A monkey on a typewriter, given enough time, will write Shakespeare". That's not because monkeys are deeply poetic and love Jacobean Era English. It's because given infinite time, the most improbable event, as long as it is possible, WILL happen. Without a doubt. Adam could eat the fruit, so it was possible.

Maybe Adam was sleeping underneath the tree, and the fruit falls into his mouth. Maybe an ape picks the fruit, and spontaneously throws it at Eve's face. The quantum wave function of the fruit could suddenly cause the fruit to appear in Adam's stomach. (Incredibly unlikely, but possible.)

Neo could have chosen the blue pill, gone to sleep, and never been faced with that choice again. That's free will. But if Morpheous was there, every morning, asking him the same question, every day, all day, for eternity, then it's not free will when he chooses the red pill. There's no alternative.

Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow.
Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow.
Eat the fruit, of decide tomorrow.

It's not free will when you wear them down until they finally agree with you. It's not free will when you won't let someone out of the room until they agree with you.

Only if he was never meant to eat the fruit eventually.

Let's make a bet, Riverwolf. I'll give you $1,000,000 US if you never give birth. If you do give birth, you give me $1 million. Your profile says you're male, so that's a pretty good bet for you, right?

I'll go ahead and explain why it's a sucker's bet for you to make. You can never prove to me that you will never give birth, because as long as you're alive and science is advancing, it's possible you may in the future. But if, 1,000 years in the future, we're still both alive and you decide you want to have a kid, and science will let you do that, then I win.

You can never win. Heads: I win, tails: we flip again. On the face of it, the Garden of Eden was exactly the same. Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow.

 

[Watchmen]

Then perhaps you'd like to provide some justification to explain why 'sin' is a problem, or bad. Or at least provide your personal definition of sin.



So god is not ever present for you? What happened to him being all powerful?



True, and an important distinction to note, but these consequences were hardly necessary.



I'm sorry, how is the concept of revealing good and evil through fruit analogious to flu shots? And how is this beneficial? Creating a confusing story that serves as a deterent for any logical person learning of this is benificial when an easier non-contradictory way could have been used?.




Which one could do in any number of ways. Why did fruit have to be involved?



How? Why?



Sin is not death, and I fail to see how death could keep one from god. If anything it should bring you closer as your leaving this world and going to one closer to this god.



See previous comment. Also, Why and how was this ressurrection necesssary to overcome physical death?



Why would a 'savior' be necessary?

What about death and 'ressurection' do you see as necessary? Is your god not all powerful? Is death a force that your god can't deal with himself, he needs one of his children to take care of it for him? If you haven't noticed, this messiah of yours has already come and gone and people are still dieing the same as before he came.

Again, I'll ask you, what part of the concept that a good son must die for his siblings to appease their father works for you? Is this what you want to see in the world you'll create, the suffering of your son? And how would your son suffering and dieing appease you?

Sin is doing something against God's wishes or refusing to do something God wants you to do.

When we sin, we separate ourselves from God because no unclean thing may be in His presence.

A Savior was provided for us so that we might be cleansed from sin. That is, the Savior takes the punishment so we don't have to. It is a merciful act - hence, Justice and Mercy are perfectly fulfilled.

As for death, God is a perfect being with a perfect physical body. When we die, our spirits and bodies separate. The resurrection is necessary so that we can have the same perfect body as God - another way we become more like him.

There's nothing confusing about this. I suspect you only make it so because you're a non-believer. Your focus on fruit is evidence of this - you focus on a mythological symbol rather than what the overall myth teaches.

 

[Watchmen]

Granting your interpretation (which is far afield of the original intent of the story), you are still saying that people were disobeying. If God intended for people to eat, then if would not have been disobedience. God is setting up a no-win situation for Adam. Disobey my words (according to my plan) or Obey my words (which is impossible because it's part of my plan). It was also impossible because...



You don't understand "forever", do you? Adam could not die, and could not leave. I'm sure you've heard the phrase: "A monkey on a typewriter, given enough time, will write Shakespeare". That's not because monkeys are deeply poetic and love Jacobean Era English. It's because given infinite time, the most improbable event, as long as it is possible, WILL happen. Without a doubt. Adam could eat the fruit, so it was possible.

Maybe Adam was sleeping underneath the tree, and the fruit falls into his mouth. Maybe an ape picks the fruit, and spontaneously throws it at Eve's face. The quantum wave function of the fruit could suddenly cause the fruit to appear in Adam's stomach. (Incredibly unlikely, but possible.)

Neo could have chosen the blue pill, gone to sleep, and never been faced with that choice again. That's free will. But if Morpheous was there, every morning, asking him the same question, every day, all day, for eternity, then it's not free will when he chooses the red pill. There's no alternative.

Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow.
Eat the fruit, or decide tomorrow.
Eat the fruit, of decide tomorrow.

It's not free will when you wear them down until they finally agree with you. It's not free will when you won't let someone out of the room until they agree with you.

I guess you don't get my POV. God knew it would eventually happen. And, knowing this, he provided a Savior. He also knew it was necessary so that his children would become more like him.