How did God's plan for Adam and Eve backfire?

[Wm777]

In Eden, God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.”

Then He created Eve.
Fast forward.
Fall.

It sounds flippant, I know, but it kind of makes one wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if God had just kept it between Adam and Himself.

Many of us (both man and woman) now struggle to be at peace with God, even to the point of secluding ourselves to do as such, and many religious houses will even call this kind of cloistered isolation a holy sacrifice.

So how is it that God could say “It is not good for man to be alone”, and then come to the conclusion that creating Eve would somehow have made things better - which was a plan that doesn’t seem to have worked…

 

[Justin_Mary]

which was a plan that doesn’t seem to have worked…

I believe He believes it worked perfectly.

From Genesis to Revelation this is the story of God revealing Himself to us. Many of the stories show us how incomplete we are. We have to understand that in order to even grasp the Father.

 

[Aquinas11]

Gods plan was great

Man just failed to execute it. Eve listened to serpent, disobeyed God. Then Adam blamed Eve instead of taking ownership for his decision to eat fruit

 

[Mtatum1958]

God’s Divine plan has and is working out perfectly.

The fact He called out to Adam and not Eve indicates the sin was Adam’s.

 

[Wm777]

Gods plan was great

Man just failed to execute it. Eve listened to serpent, disobeyed God. Then Adam blamed Eve instead of taking ownership for his decision to eat fruit

I see.

So, it’s like, a happily married couple, like Adam and Eve, go on their honeymoon, where they stay at the Hotel Paradise. There the hotel owner, like God, puts them in a room with a fast-talking, killer snake.

Neither snake, nor happily married couple are too keen on the idea of hanging out together.

Negotiations ensue.

That said…

.
They all fall down…



I liked the first creation story better…

 

[Wm777]

God’s Divine plan has and is working out perfectly.

The fact He called out to Adam and not Eve indicates the sin was Adam’s.

The question here isn’t so much one of blame on either Adam or Eve’s part.

The question is why would God have put two vulnerable people in a room with a fast-talking snake in the first place.

 

[porthos11]

O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam that gained for us so great a Redeemer!

 

[Wm777]

O happy fault! O necessary sin of Adam that gained for us so great a Redeemer!

Then my question must have a mystical answer.

If I understand what you’re saying correctly, then, Jesus, prefigured like the serpent on Moses’ staff, was hung upon a tree for all to look at when tempted.

But where is the redemption in this action?

If Jesus had completely removed the snake from the picture, then it would probably make sense to human wits.

I think some say He did remove it altogether (by becoming evil itself on the cross)… But it seems like sin still remains for us to need to be redeemed… or, in other words, the snake is still in the room as a threat…

Again, it seems like it could only be a mystery… maybe that is why God forbid them to eat of the fruit of the tree in the first place… one can’t know the meaning of life, but only trust in it…

Still it would seem easier done alone with God…

 

[fhansen]

In Eden, God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.”

Then He created Eve.
Fast forward.
Fall.

It sounds flippant, I know, but it kind of makes one wonder if it wouldn’t have been better if God had just kept it between Adam and Himself.

Many of us (both man and woman) now struggle to be at peace with God, even to the point of secluding ourselves to do as such, and many religious houses will even call this kind of cloistered isolation a holy sacrifice.

So how is it that God could say “It is not good for man to be alone”, and then come to the conclusion that creating Eve would somehow have made things better - which was a plan that doesn’t seem to have worked…

Its not good for man to be alone; we’re social beings. But original sin has compromised the integrity of all of us, and therefore of our relationships. Conflict, competition, and strife often rule the day, rather than love. The problem is that man must “socialize” with more than other humans; he was made for communion with God first of all. That’s where his integrity truly lies and everything else in his life will be all the less perfect to the extent that God isn’t placed first above all else. This takes time though. The ideal isn’t necessarily going to be reached in a fallen world. so here we’re to learn of this necessity, of our need for Him, because of the suffering that separation from Him produces. That’s the universal vocation of this life, to seek and begin to find perfection while understanding that it’s a difficult, while worthy, journey. We’re here to find God, IOW, not the perfect marriage or job or fulfilled life in the material sense.

 

[Wesrock]

Mtatum1958:

God’s Divine plan has and is working out perfectly.

The fact He called out to Adam and not Eve indicates the sin was Adam’s.

The question here isn’t so much one of blame on either Adam or Eve’s part.

The question is why would God have put two vulnerable people in a room with a fast-talking snake in the first place.

Humans need to take responsibility for their own faults and entrust themselves to God instead of trying to pass the blame.

 

[Aquinas11]

stay at the Hotel Paradise. There the hotel owner, like God, puts them in a room with a fast-talking, killer snake.

No it’s like God put them in a Garden w 2 trees and said don’t eat from 1

 

[Lea101]

So how is it that God could say “It is not good for man to be alone”, and then come to the conclusion that creating Eve would somehow have made things better - which was a plan that doesn’t seem to have worked…

So we are made in God’s image. The trinity basically shows a relationship. We see here that man is made for relationship, as well.

In a more secular way, we are social beings.

Then He created Eve.
Fast forward.
Fall

Do you honestly think Adam would have never sinned if Eve wasn’t there though? That the serpent would slither away? Or that somehow Adam would be strong enough to say no to the devil, but weak enough to say no to a woman?

Not being rude at all, just wanted you to ask yourself these questions.

 

[Mi_Rose]

The point is choice. All of us mist choose to follow God. That includes Adam and Eve.

 

[Dorothy]

God is infinitely perfect. I am finite. God is all powerful, etc., etc., I don’t feel the need to question Him.

The Lord has perfectly shown His love for us. His plan is holy! We can become holy when we cooperate with His plan.

 

[Wm777]

Not sure about the second half, but the Trinitarian part seems to make the most sense of all the answers so far.

 

[Wm777]

Wm777:

stay at the Hotel Paradise. There the hotel owner, like God, puts them in a room with a fast-talking, killer snake.

No it’s like God put them in a Garden w 2 trees and said don’t eat from 1

With 1/3 of the angels already in Hell… is there any evidence it was really that simple? The snake just appears out of nowhere…

Thus, the whole matter, including angels, becomes a matter of commutative justice at that point…

That actually takes the heat off of Eve and puts her on par with Adam… although the angels, particularly the fallen ones, were the problem…

So, then, we have these two innocent creatures of God happy ambling through Eden with all of the good things in life, including a simple warning not to eat of the tree…

Snake appears.
Confounds man.
Man falls.
Gives rise to the whole issue of commutative justice.
Insert lots of futile studies.
Redemption occurs when Jesus is crucified.
Sin still exists, at least potentially.

The only way around it is by carrying a big heavy cross through life because of the threat of sin.

Pivot and Convert: Carrying the Cross = Love of God.

Quoting Jesus to Pilate: You say so…

And we’re back to ground zero.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As we just heard at the Easter Vigil “O happy fault of Adam”.

 

[Aquinas11]

Confounds man

No, man voluntarily chooses to listen to snake and act on its suggestion. There is deliberate eschewing of responsibility under guise of “confounds”

 

[Wm777]

Am just thinking - the real solution here seems to be simple… err, well, just a little complex…

Dont play with snakes.

Really.

Assuming God’s directive not to eat of the fruit of the tree was something simple enough to be followed by human wits - then, since God wouldn’t tempt us beyond our capacities, we simply wouldn’t eat of the tree.

On the other hand…

The snake was the tempter due to his “cunning”…

It’s not every day one sees a talking snake… let alone one hanging out in the same tree God said to avoid… but, then, our poor parents (Adam and Eve) seemed to be so dumb, it’s almost as if anything could have been possible back in the day…

But, when God says, “Dont jump off that cliff…”
And the Devil say to Jesus, “Throw yourself down…”
It only makes sense all Christ would have simply had to say was “no…”

Adam and Eve should have done the same thing.

Lesson: God’s order (in Genesis One) is simple enough. So it’s not really just the tree one should look out for… the tree is what we want to protect…

When we hit Genesis Two, however, it’s more the talking snakes, who defile the tree, that we want to avoid.

 

[Aquinas11]

It’s not every day one sees a talking snake… let alone one hanging out in the same tree God said to avoid… but, then, our poor parents (Adam and Eve) seemed to be so dumb, it’s almost as if anything could have been possible back in the day…

You just proved the point. Adam and Even had much better ability to resist temptation than us, since they didn’t have original sin. So they were actually less dumb than us. Which makes their free and voluntary decision even more culpable.