Adam and Eve, playing with grenades

[grannymh]

Wait, I have always been told that God allowed Adam and Eve to be tempted, right? Didn’t it work the same way as when he allowed Job to be hurt by Satan? I think this has to be under the “blind faith” category in my head, too. My, what a long list! :0

Depending on one’s geographic location, the phrase “God allowed Adam” has a variety of meanings. Also, Adam is considered the first human and founder of humankind. Job is not on Adam’s level.

A simple explanation is that Adam, because of his spiritual soul, had the free choice of living in submission to his Creator or preferring himself over his Creator.

The rest is history.

Blessings,
granny

Human nature is peerless.

 

[grannymh]

I think many take the story of creation too literally. It is the story of mankind. Without the experience of evil, man cannot be free to choose good over it. Thus, he cannot truly be said to have free will. Once man has the experience of evil, then he also has the responsibility of choice. How he uses this choice is the basis of all religious teachings. This would also shed some light on the story of Job whom God allowed to be tested by Satan.

My apology in advance if I have misinterpreted the thoughts in post 19.

May I respectfully point out – since I do not know the source of post 19-- that some of it sounds like the popular denial of Catholic doctrines on Original Sin and possibly a denial of a rational spiritual soul created directly by God in Adam and in you and me.

Blessings,
granny

Adam is the apple of God’s eye
(example of reality and figurative language)

 

[Poseidon]

i didnt say it was God. please read. it was a “strange tempter”.

My apologies. I thought that you were confusing the characters in the scenario.

 

[Poseidon]

Because Adam and Eve weren’t children. Adam and Eve might have been innocent but they weren’t idiots

But they still didn’t have any knowledge of death or evil, so they weren’t mentally equipped to make that decision. They also couldn’t understand that Satan was bad, because again, they had no knowledge of evil.

 

[Poseidon]

You’re making the assumption that God is the one that put the serpent there with the purpose to tempt, and therefore making the indirect assertion that God wanted them to be tempted. It would be more accurate for the analogy if the mother left the room, and another woman walked in and told the children to play with the grenade, even though the mother probably told the woman not to.

I also agree with the others that Adam and Eve may have been ignorant, but they weren’t idiots. They knew they would be disobeying God, but it seems their curiosity got the best of them.

Even if God didn’t let Satan in directly, he knew that the devil was there tempting them and allowed it to happen. So it’s analogous to the mother allowing the other adult into the room, even if she didn’t directly invite him.

 

[Poseidon]

The problem in the analogy is that the mother cannot bring back the child to life, that is why it is negligence, unlike God that can restore the corrupt human nature back to its perfect form. Another thing is that eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge did not kill Adam & Even but their act of disobedience which is Sin, unlike the grenade which is made to kill with or without permission. That is the difference.

It didn’t immediately kill them, but it did cause humans to die of old age/sickness and go to hell. I’d say that’s just as bad, if not worse, than immediate death.

 

[snarflemike]

Here’s a scenario that I think seems very analogous to the story of Adam and Eve: A mother takes her child and places him in a room full of toys. In the middle of the room she places a grenade, and sternly warns the child not to pull the pin, or else he’ll die. She then leaves the room, and lets another adult in who she knows will encourage the child to pull the pin. She comes back an hour later, and finds that the child has in fact pulled the pin to the grenade and is dead.

How is that any different from God leaving the tree of knowledge sitting in the middle of the Garden of Eden, knowing that they weren’t capable of understanding the consequences of eating its fruit, and then letting Satan in to tempt them? If any human parent did that we’d charge them with criminal negligence, but we give God a free pass. Can anyone explain this?

How do you know they didn’t understand the consequences? You’re just tossing that part in to strengthen your argument. In fact, you HAVE no argument until you can prove that assertion.

 

[Poseidon]

How do you know they didn’t understand the consequences? You’re just tossing that part in to strengthen your argument. In fact, you HAVE no argument until you can prove that assertion.

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Before that, they didn’t know good from evil, so how could they possibly have understood the evil that would result from their choice?

 

[snarflemike]

It was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Before that, they didn’t know good from evil, so how could they possibly have understood the evil that would result from their choice?

What is the tree the of knowledge of good and evil? You’re making assumptions.

 

[bzkoss236]

Even if God didn’t let Satan in directly, he knew that the devil was there tempting them and allowed it to happen. So it’s analogous to the mother allowing the other adult into the room, even if she didn’t directly invite him.

Exactly, and I account for that in my analogy. Allowing something to happen isn’t the same as making it happen. Allowing the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve isn’t the same as God sending the serpent to tempt them. In allowing it to happen, as bad as it may seem, God is showing that He doesn’t want to control us, he doesn’t want to make us love him. Just as you couldn’t stop an adult teen from making stupid choices, you can only say that you don’t approve. You can’t make your child love you, you just have to hope that they will, and to put an effort into giving them opportunities to love you. God does the same.

Also, your analogy also lacks the fact that Adam and Eve didn’t die immediately after eating the apple (or more correctly translated, fruit). They were cast out of the Garden of Eden first before they died of old age. So, it would also be more appropriate to have something less deadly, but still forbidden, in the center of the room. And then after the children touch/play with it they are then to be taken out of the room, never to be allowed to play in the room again.

 

[Rudy_Baga]

My apology in advance if I have misinterpreted the thoughts in post 19.

May I respectfully point out – since I do not know the source of post 19-- that some of it sounds like the popular denial of Catholic doctrines on Original Sin and possibly a denial of a rational spiritual soul created directly by God in Adam and in you and me.

Blessings,
granny

Adam is the apple of God’s eye
(example of reality and figurative language)

Respectfully,
You have misunderstood the post. It does not conflict with anything having to do with original sin and embraces the concept of a rational soul having free will to choose good or evil. Please re-read the post and find where it makes either of those claims. Other wise, please explain a better reason for God to allow evil to exist and then giving man the free will and responsibility to choose good instead.

 

[grannymh]

Respectfully,
You have misunderstood the post. It does not conflict with anything having to do with original sin and embraces the concept of a rational soul having free will to choose good or evil. Please re-read the post and find where it makes either of those claims. Other wise, please explain a better reason for God to allow evil to exist and then giving man the free will and responsibility to choose good instead.

As I said: “Some of it sounds like the popular denial of Catholic doctrines on Original Sin and possibly a denial of a rational spiritual soul created directly by God in Adam and in you and me.”

As one can tell from reading post 22, I was very hesitant since I did not know the source for post 19.

From my experience from reading CAF posts, the introductory sentences (post 19)
“I think many take the story of creation too literally. It is the story of mankind.” begets this question – What are the Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis? This is not an issue of finding a better reason for God to allow evil to exist. It is the issue of what exactly are the Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature, Original Sin, and the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

I do understand that misunderstandings can be attributed to placing Catholic doctrines as primary when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis. You have my apology for any misunderstandings.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 27

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s a scenario that I think seems very analogous to the story of Adam and Eve: A mother takes her child and places him in a room full of toys. In the middle of the room she places a grenade, and sternly warns the child not to pull the pin, or else he’ll die. She then leaves the room, and lets another adult in who she knows will encourage the child to pull the pin. She comes back an hour later, and finds that the child has in fact pulled the pin to the grenade and is dead.

How is that any different from God leaving the tree of knowledge sitting in the middle of the Garden of Eden, knowing that they weren’t capable of understanding the consequences of eating its fruit, and then letting Satan in to tempt them? If any human parent did that we’d charge them with criminal negligence, but we give God a free pass. Can anyone explain this?

First of all, your theology is wrong. Adam and Eve knew perfectly well what would happen if they ate of the tree of knowledge. God had warned them exactly what would happen. Satan tempted them through pride ( or so we think ). He said God lied. But they knew God wouldn’t lie, so there had to be another reason why they took the fruit. They probably took it for the same reason the bad angles made war on God. They wanted to be God themselves, so they believed Satan.

Alot like people today, hey!!

Certain people always think they could do better than God. Ha, ha. History is full of the bones of fools like that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If I were coming at this from a Christian standpoint I’d just say that God isn’t bound by man’s law. Man is bound by God’s law.

From my standpoint, I’d say it’s a creation myth used to teach why bad things happen in the world.

What’s the problem exactly?

Forgive me for asking, but what is an Agnotstic?

Trying to understand your standpoint as offered here.

 

[bzkoss236]

Forgive me for asking, but what is an Agnotstic?

Trying to understand your standpoint as offered here.

The definition of an agnostic is someone who does not make a decision as to whether or not there is a God (or gods), and just lives life as is under their own decisions of right and wrong. Or more simply, an almost atheist who says that there could possibly be a God (or gods), but they don’t care enough to decide.

 

[StrawberryJam]

The definition of an agnostic is someone who does not make a decision as to whether or not there is a God (or gods), and just lives life as is under their own decisions of right and wrong. Or more simply, an almost atheist who says that there could possibly be a God (or gods), but they don’t care enough to decide.

Thank you for that explaination, however that was NOT my question.
At the time I wrote my post, Rhubarb was listed as an Agnotstic. Not an Agnostic.
I am unaware of what an Agnotstic follows.

Wishing you well,
SJ

 

[Rudy_Baga]

As I said: “Some of it sounds like the popular denial of Catholic doctrines on Original Sin and possibly a denial of a rational spiritual soul created directly by God in Adam and in you and me.”

As one can tell from reading post 22, I was very hesitant since I did not know the source for post 19.

From my experience from reading CAF posts, the introductory sentences (post 19)
“I think many take the story of creation too literally. It is the story of mankind.” begets this question – What are the Catholic doctrines which flow from the first three chapters of Genesis? This is not an issue of finding a better reason for God to allow evil to exist. It is the issue of what exactly are the Catholic doctrines about human origin, human nature, Original Sin, and the salvific mission of Jesus Christ.

I do understand that misunderstandings can be attributed to placing Catholic doctrines as primary when it comes to the first three chapters of Genesis. You have my apology for any misunderstandings.

Blessings,
granny

Genesis 1: 27

I understand. I think we really are saying the same thing in different ways. When I say “the story of mankind”, I mean the story of the “human condition” which encompasses his origin, nature and subsequent fall.

As for my comment about taking the book to literally, the preface for Genesis in my copy of the Bible explains that the book is a compilation of several literary traditions which reflect much older oral traditions. It also states that “To make the truths contained in these chapters intelligible to the Israelite people destined to preserve them, they needed to be expressed through elements prevailing among people of that time. For this reason, the truths themselves must therefore be clearly distinguished from their literary garb.” It then proceeds to itemize the details you listed above as well as a host of other truths contained in the book. New American Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1970.

I have always been taught as a Catholic that while some books contain history, there are those which are literary works designed to explain the workings of God, His dealings with man, man’s duties toward God and each other, etc. Another example would be the Book of Job as well as the other wisdom books. Tobit is another example and the preface for this book states that “Although the Book of Tobit is usually listed with the historical books, it more correctly stands midway between them and the wisdom literature.” And also, “The book makes Tobit a relative of Ahiqar, a hero of ancient Near Eastern folklore.”

Hopefully that helps to clarify my comments.

 

[bzkoss236]

Thank you for that explaination, however that was NOT my question.
At the time I wrote my post, Rhubarb was listed as an Agnotstic. Not an Agnostic.
I am unaware of what an Agnotstic follows.

Wishing you well,
SJ

OH! Ha ha, I figured it was a typo on your part, but I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification! I wonder if Rhubarb made a typo or is making a pun…

 

[kompaz]

I see this problem all the time with non-Catholics even (not necessarily atheists). They look at Genesis in a vacuum and point out all sorts of errors in it. Meanwhile there has literally been thousands upon thousands of years of study by both Jews and Christians on Genesis. Figuring it out needs to be looked at in light of the commentary of the past, not just in a vacuum.

Honestly, I could never understand that argument. It just seems backwards.

It makes sense, for example, to read Deuteronomy to understand the social background which is implicit in the Gospel. It makes sense to read the Gospel before reading Revelation. In general, it makes sense to use an earlier text to understand the later text, because it gives you some context.

However, since Genesis supposedly contains the earliest history of mankind, then no other text can be used to provide the context for Genesis, because no other text should predate Genesis.

If you say that one should read later commentary to understand Genesis, you are acknowledging that Genesis is not a historical narrative, but rather a symbolical or mythological one, i.e. it is post hoc attempt by the Jewish culture to describe cosmogony. An attempt naturally limited by then-current understanding of the world.

However, if it is so, then obsessing over what Genesis actually says has as much merit as obsessing over, say, Nordic mythology or Tolkien’s Valaquenta – i.e., none.

 

[kompaz]

Also, your analogy also lacks the fact that Adam and Eve didn’t die immediately after eating the apple (or more correctly translated, fruit). They were cast out of the Garden of Eden first before they died of old age. So, it would also be more appropriate to have something less deadly, but still forbidden, in the center of the room. And then after the children touch/play with it they are then to be taken out of the room, never to be allowed to play in the room again.

I find it interesting that Catholic understanding of Genesis 3 dictates that disobedience was the reason for banishing from Eden, whereas in 3:22 the God himself (or the Elohim themselves, if you prefer) say(s) that the real reason was understanding of good and evil that Adam gained:

22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

Which leads to the fascinating question, why God didn’t want Adam to know good from evil…