Did God Show Himself Insecure? (Garden Story)

[Windwalker]

(that was easy, so I answer you first )

as you say: it's an assumption. This can't count as Bible, though.

It was an assumption based upon the skant information that we have about the whole circumstances of the situation back then. Not such a shocking matter. People do this all the time, including in how they read the Bible.

For instance, assuming Genesis was meant to be read like a book of history and science in the modern sense of those disciplines. That's a major assumption, and not one supported by what we know of ancient cultures. Yet entire theologies and church denominations are based upon them.

So I wouldn't make too big of a deal that I admit there are assumptions being made. At least it's being honest, whereas others are not about the same thing.

maybe they didn't have one.

Then they were created as homeless adults by God? "In my father's house, there are many rooms." Is this because he realized after Eden that making Adam and Eve homeless was not such a good idea, consider it led them to a life a crime out on the streets?

according to you.

Which of course adds a considerable amount of weight to it, since my reasoning is sound.

for me it's a story of love. God places them in paradise to enjoy. 1 rule to follow... and the rest of it: fun.
You can read it as a fun story, too.

You mean, fun, with one serious temptation placed right in the middle of the playground, with a spotlight on it, and the teacher's instructions, "Don't touch this" given to them? Hmmm... what did he think was going to happen? What would any parent with any child imagine would happen in a similar setup?

If there was a betting pool going on with the angels watching this whole thing, I'm pretty sure no one lost the bet.

 

[thomas t]

"Good and evil". already backed by 14 of 15 translations counted to date, can be supplemented by Robert Alter's translation, which renders it "the tree of knowledge, good and evil". That makes 15 of 16.

is this trying to go round in circles with me another time?
It's so rude to just step over what has been said:
EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!
excerpts:
I answered this already!
I wrote:
I answered it in the previous post.
I permit myself to copy-paste, as I did last time you reiterated yourself:
[....]
But that was not the question.
Evil in what sense? [evil in the sense of morally wrong or in the sense of bad]


how often do I have to repeat myself?
Even before, I answered this already repeating myself at that point already:

please stop going round in circles with me!

It's so rude to just step over what I said already, ignore it, and pretend you can still uphold your point.

According to you it must have been evil in the sense of morally wrong. I know that it is your opinion. Can you please stop reiterating yourself?

Edited for clarity.

 

[thomas t]

Which of course adds a considerable amount of weight to it, since my reasoning is sound.

according to you again.
I prefer Bible only.
If something is left open I recommend leaving it open also.

You mean, fun, with one serious temptation placed right in the middle of the playground, with a spotlight on it, and the teacher's instructions, "Don't touch this" given to them? What would any parent with any child imagine would happen in a similar setup?

child or adult? see below: (you can't have it both ways)

Then they were created as homeless adults by God? "In my father's house, there are many rooms." Is this because he realized after Eden that making Adam and Eve homeless was not such a good idea, consider it led them to a life a crime out on the streets?

I don't think so.
I think that Adam himself made a house for the two of them soon.

 

[thomas t]

However, don’t you think He sort of overreacts a bit too much? Was it really such a big deal to justify breaking all of creation, and causing that cosmic drama?

good question.
They broke 100% of the rules that there were though... and didn't show that they realized it was wrong to do so.
What would you expect?

 

[blü 2]

According to you it must have been evil in the sense of morally wrong. I know that it is your opinion.

Not just my opinion ─ by far the dominant opinion among expert translators.

And that, I suspect, oh my apologist friend, is what gets under your skin. That, and the fact that your reading makes no sense, lets them happily poke their own eyes out until they eat the fruit.

If you don't make me have to remind you again, I won't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

good question.
They broke 100% of the rules that there were though... and didn't show that they realized it was wrong to do so.
What would you expect?

Once again their actions after they broke the rules should tell you that they did not fully understand what they did until it was too late. You ignored the fact that they did not even know that they were naked, what was really a non-sin, until after they ate the fruit. You have to ignore the context to maintain your apologetic. This happens quite often in the Bible which is why non-Christians often have a superior understanding of the Bible than Christians have.

 

[wellwisher]

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

The entire story of Adam and Eve has God first creating the prohibition about eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The actual violation does not happen until Satan cons and tempts Eve, who then tempts Adam. Adam and Eve were doing fine with God's request, until a third party stepped in.

The full analogy is you go to a tea party and the host says not to touch his favorite pen on his desk. You can use any other pen, but leave that one alone. You are a polite guest and honor his request, until someone close to the host, cons you into thinking using the host's favorite pen is a good idea. Satan is not thrown from heaven until Revelations. At the time of Adam and Eve, Satan was high up in the power structure, beyond Adam and Eve.

In the case of Eve, Satan appealed to her insecurities and vanity; knowledge for power to appease her fears. Adam then allows Eve to convince him, also due to Adam's insecurity. Since Eve ate, if she was sent away and Adam remained, he would be alone again, like before he met Eve; lose the love of his life and slide into depression. That was worse then exile with her since he would a lose a part of himself.

Neither would have done this on their own. However, peer pressure and pandering to vanity and insecurities got the better of them; fake news. As they became conscious of good and evil, having done evil, they lost their natural autonomy; instinct, and became herd animals; civilization, having to cluster together for security, while being told what is good and evil by others.

The problem with knowledge of good and evil; law, is this type of knowledge is never permanent, but changes with time. For example, the two political parties in the USA cannot agree on what is good and evil. Each defines good and evil the opposite way. Now we go in a new direction of good and evil. That wishy washy is not useful for survival. The tree of knowledge turned out to be subjective knowledge, which was not as good at it appeared, under the con of the used car peer pressure.

In these forums, the homosexuals and transgenders want to change an old definition of them being evil into a modern definition of being good, because law and knowledge of good and evil can be changed by those in power. It is arbitrary. This is why God said you shall surely die. Subjective knowledge of good and evil will create long term problems that instinct; tree of life, did not have.

This story is connected to God resting on the 7th day and needing a helper to tend to his creation, while he was on sabbath. God set this up so Satan could do the work for God, as his CEO, while God rested on the Sabbath. Adam and Eve needed to be on the same page as Satan, for this to work. God knew they would take the bait. The analogy is say a General says stay here and then a Major comes by and says follow me that General needs you. What do you do? Adam and Eve tried to do good and unknowingly got with the program.

Jesus did away with law, since he knew knowledge of good and evil was subjective and subject to human perversion. The Roman Governor Pilate, said Jesus did not do any evil worthy of the death penalty, but the Pharisees perverted the law on demand. Law would always remain in flux, never reaching steady state, very often perverted and used as a tool by power for power. Faith brings one back to the tree of Life; natural instinct to act correctly for all time.

 

[wellwisher]

The story of Adam and Eve is also a metaphor for the evolution of modern human ego consciousness. Modern humans have two centers of consciousness, which are the inner self and the ego. The inner self came first and is what animals have and what the pre-humans had. The pre-humans, by definition, had human DNA, but only one center of consciousness.

The inner self is connected to instinct and the tree of life. The ego is relatively new and appears somewhere around the formation of earliest civilization. The story of Adam and Eve tells us things about this profound improvement in the human brain. The story of Adam and Eve is type of memory peg designed to last the ages, so the meaning could be unraveled in a practical way, for each generation.

The term self awareness implies two points of view. It implies a spontaneous and compulsive aspect of ourselves and also an observer aspect who can become conscious of our unconsciousness. For example, if we have a habit or daily ritual, this is often done without thinking; autopilot. Self awareness allows one to observe and think about such habitual actions, which happen apart from thinking. I think therefore I am. This statement is the about the ego or the secondary center, which is self aware of another side of itself, that is instinctive, spontaneous and habitual; unconscious and inner self. This is how therapy works.

The story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor about the formation of early ego consciousness using law, i.e., knowledge of good and evil. Although law is subjective, it is designed to be robotic; blind acceptance and conformity, it is capable of consolidating the secondary; ego, through forced habit and the need for self awareness and reflection. Its flawed nature will assure the ego gets involved so the ego can evolve and strengthen. One begins to notice the injustice of your forced actions and habits due to law. This changes law but never all the way to steady state. It is continuing education for the ego firmware.

Original sin is connected to the ego, which forms in all modern humans at birth. The ego choices, are defined by cultural knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong, better or worse, have and have nots, etc. These can cause us to depart from instinct. This ego education is based on learned knowledge, instead of innate inner self type knowledge; tree of life and instinct.

The tree of life was sealed when Eve and Adam ate of the tree of knowledge. Most people are not aware of the inner self, but assume there is only one center. This tradition goes way back. Original sin was less a punishment, as is often assumed by the ego. It was more of a strategy, to help the ego evolve by making it the center of conscious focus. This sealing of the tree of life, also prevented the inner self from being tampered with. Although this can and does happen on occasions.

Satan was originally Lucifer, who was called the morning star, which is Venus. In Roman tradition Venus, was connected to the goddess of love and desire. Lucifer was the original model for the human ego; love and desire. The garden of Eden was paradise in the sense of no fear and all your desires satisfied by nature. The morning star is a celestial object; blue sky, between night and the dawn of day. It came from the unconscious mind and inner self ; night, and became conscious; day. The original ego had a connection to this natural personality firmware; Lucifer and Venus, which like a satellite, consolidates as a secondary center via instinct and desire.

When Lucifer becomes Satan, there is a fall from paradise. The new motivation behind the secondary center changes from desire to fear (law). Adam and Eve before the fall; earliest modern humans, had their original egos connected to desire. Each day was bright and sunny. If you were naturally hungry, you eat and choose from the many wonderful choices, that are all good. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, changed the firmware for the ego to one connected to fear. The new ego obtained an innate insecurity and the need to overcompensate. War is based on this.

Faith returns us and our ego center back to desire. However, since the modern ego was born of fear, it is not easy to follow the path of faith, in the inner voice, out of fear created by the super ego of culture; herd mentality and law. If you look at politics, both sides constantly spook their herds, about the other side, making it hard to have a relaxed desire in fate.

The traditional interpretations of Adam and Eve are centered on fear and violation of law since this was how the ego was evolve beginning with civilization. But in reality, this story was about eduction and leading the ego, full circle, back to the beginning; Second Adam, desire and love of faith in an inner voice. The early Christians had no fear of death since their egos were not dependent that way. It was love of each other and desire for heaven. Jesus is often refereed to as the Second Adam before the fear.

The bible dating of creation is about 6000 years ago which times out with an important invention, dated by science, which was the invention of writing. Writing altered the way the brain had been evolving. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was in the garden, since it was useful. It was a viable option, in the beginning before writing, for partial ego development. Before writing, memory would fade and desire would return. When writing appears, things got carved into stone and bad law could linger and could not be forgotten. Fear then sticks causing the ego development to shift. Desire does not use or need writing.

 

[thomas t]

Not just my opinion ─ by far the dominant opinion among expert translators.

And that, I suspect, oh my apologist friend, is what gets under your skin. That, and the fact that your reading makes no sense, lets them happily poke their own eyes out until they eat the fruit.

If you don't make me have to remind you again, I won't.

so just to clarify: you just said that the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 2 was about knowing right from wrong... as opposed to good from bad.
You supported this argument by saying that expert translators would agree that it is evil in the sense of morally wrong.

You quoted none of them.
A checkable source is one that everyone could check, such as a link.
Evil in the sense of morally wrong... is that really what your experts say?


However, I hold that this is not a question for which it takes an expert for solving it.

Just click on the Hebrew word as used in Genesis 2 for "evil". You find it is the same word used for evil cows or evil days. Cows as mentioned in Genesis 41:3 and days can't be morally wrong, as I see it. Just bad.
Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity

I conclude: if cows can be evil , must have been evil in the sense of bad then. Thus, the knoweldge in Genesis 2 could potentially have been about good vs. bad, too.
It is really that simple.

 

[Kenny]

No, it is a conclusion drawn that is based upon the myth as told in the Bible.



That is a better term to use. But ignores the fact that God lied and the Serpent told the truth.



But there is no reason to believe that. Well except to justify your own interpretation of the myth. It does have a fatal flaw. It ignores that there were two magical trees in the story.

Get back to me when there is something more substantive please

 

[blü 2]

so just to clarify: you just said that the knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 2 was about knowing right from wrong... as opposed to good from bad.
You supported this argument by saying that expert translators would agree that it is evil in the sense of morally wrong.

Yes. I also pointed out that your own version doesn't make sense ─ not knowing it was bad to poke your own eyes out, was one example I suggested,

You quoted none of them.

I quoted ALL 14 ─ they say quote good and evil unquote. And I quoted a 15th, slightly different in presentation, "tree of knowledge, good and evil"

Evil in the sense of morally wrong... is that really what your experts say?

Actually, they're everyone's experts, and that's what they say.

However, I hold that this is not a question for which it takes an expert for solving it.

That still leaves you with the problem that Adam and Eve didn't know it wasn't smart to poke their eyes out. If my argument had that problem, I'd be embarrassed.

Just click on the Hebrew word as used in Genesis 2 for "evil". You find it is the same word used for evil cows or evil days. Cows as mentioned in Genesis 41:3 and days can't be morally wrong, as I see it. Just bad.
Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity

Two points here. One is that I did that before I posted the first time so I didn't have to do it again when you suggested it. The second is that Strong is one authority, and he doesn't give an opinion on the specific passage, which is our actual subject here, while 15 authorities with whom I agree do so and one doesn't.

I conclude: if cows can be evil , must have been evil in the sense of bad then.

I fail to understand what point you're making. We're talking about knowledge of human morality, not bovine morality.

 

[thomas t]

I fail to understand what point you're making. We're talking about knowledge of human morality, not bovine morality.

it's according to you. You say that some experts say so.

Yes. I also pointed out that your own version doesn't make sense ─ not knowing it was bad to poke your own eyes out, was one example I suggested,

+

That still leaves you with the problem that Adam and Eve didn't know it wasn't smart to poke their eyes out. If my argument had that problem, I'd be embarrassed.

I answered this. Please go back to #56:
I wrote (copy-pasting here):
"yeah we had that debate last time:
I also said that you don't need to necessarily have knowledge concerning pain in order to have the ability of feeling pain."
So I stay with my opinion, my version does make sense.

I quoted ALL 14 ─ they say quote good and evil unquote. And I quoted a 15th, slightly different in presentation, "tree of knowledge, good and evil"

checkable sources please. One that comes with a link.
I generally don't believe hearsay.

Two points here. One is that I did that before I posted the first time so I didn't have to do it again when you suggested it. The second is that Strong is one authority, and he doesn't give an opinion on the specific passage, which is our actual subject here, while 15 authorities with whom I agree do so and one doesn't.

Strong's is a dictionary.
If you say it is wrong, please provide a checkable link to a decent dictionary that shows that the underlying Hebrew word for evil cannot be translated in the sense of "bad".
If you can't provide, I stay with Strong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Get back to me when there is something more substantive please

In other words you have no refutation.

All you have is your own interpretation of the myth and since your belief is an irrational one you are forced to use an irrational defense.

 

[37818]

Wearing cloths? Culture and climate 10s of thousands of years at least.

The legends and myths evolve and change over time, and the theme remains over time. The latest compilation of Creation mythology was Genesis in Hebrew Culture, which was not compiled until ~700 -600 BCE.

Well, that is what you have come to accept. That account is unique to the Hebrews. I believe it dates to the Exodus, in the 1500 or 1400's BCE.

 

[wellwisher]

The way I look at good and evil versus good and bad, is good and evil creates the greatest contrast. Like in lighting, white and black have the greatest contrast, since white reflects all colors and black absorbs all colors. Good and bad is more like shades of gray, which does not create the same level of contrast. This is more like relative morality.

In the case of black and white setting the maximum possible contrast, if we had a dark gray action, it may appear black on the white background, but it may also appear like light gray on black. This contrast makes it easier to love your enemy, even as he strikes you, since you can see some white.

If we use relative morality and shades of gray, a dark gray and light gray might be used as the contrast. The dark gray does not look quite as bad against the light gray, nor does appear to have any white when next to the another dark gray.

The reason the largest contrast is important is the maximum contrast of opposites; black and white, can be used to create the (x,y) axises of reason; 2-D thought. The X and Y axis have nothing in common with each other like black and white. Shades of gray become one of many plots on this universal grid, making relative morality of good and bad, a curve, but not the best basis for a universal coordinate system.

Once reason appeared; 2-D or cause and affect, we are able to better determine how to weight actions, and now have to depend on emotional appeal to fear or prestige to make our plot appear better. There are very few laws of right and wrong that have stood the test of time. These are constantly being modified and added to, because the coordinate system chosen was subjective and not universally objective. The ancients did not understand this, but depended on prestige and fear, to decide who was right or wrong. Like in Washington DC, those who make the laws add dual justice systems, in their own favor, since cause and affect do not apply to their laws.

In the evolution of Judeo-Christian thinking, Lucifer begins as the morning star. This is connected to Venus and she was the Roman goddess of love and desire. During the time of Lucifer, there was no bad or evil, just this things that we desired.These were all good because they were god made; natural.

Lucifer evolved into Satan, who now becomes connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil/bad. This went from 1-D thinking; desire, and approached 2-D thinking. Satan further evolves into the Devil or pure evil. If the Devil is pure evil, Jesus becomes pure good, allowing the (x,y) axis of cause and affect to take shape, leading to the age of reason. I am not married to the past, since that was a stage in the evolution of consciousness. However, it is useful to know the past, and see how things progressed to the present, so we can draw an extrapolated line to the future.

The Holy Spirit and trinity added a new twist, since it anticipates 3-D thinking; cause, affect, cause and affect, cause and affect. The symbolism of one God as three person is the 3-D axis (x,y,z). It is one thing and three things. The affect of the spirit; inspiration=z leads to another cause and affect (x,y) that is not only rational, but also becomes 3-D; past, present and future.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, that is what you have come to accept. That account is unique to the Hebrews. I believe it dates to the Exodus, in the 1500 or 1400's BCE.

I go by the evidence and there is no evidence for the Hebrew language nor the scripture before ~700 BCE.

 

[Kenny]

In other words you have no refutation.

All you have is your own interpretation of the myth and since your belief is an irrational one you are forced to use an irrational defense.

No, I meant there was no substantive thought to answer to. You made statements with no substantive support.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I meant there was no substantive thought to answer to. You made statements with no substantive support.

Sorry, but reasoning is support. I thought that you were familiar with the myth.

 

[Kenny]

Nimos, thank you for inspiring me to think:

the typical atheist argument, as I know it, is blaming God for putting up rules when A&E didn't have a clue about right&wrong, so that they couldn't reasonably have obeyed to rules to begin with.
This is why I say that they might have known right from wrong - before eating the fruit.
Co-poster @Brian2 , in contrast, argues that they were inclined to do wrong... before eating the fruit and getting the knowledge of it. see EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

I respect his apologetics. But I personally tend to take another approach to the garden story.

For me, the issue of evil being understood in the sense of morally wrong is right at the center of the debate we're leading here.

If they can argue that A&E effectively had no idea of the wrongfulness of eating the fruit... why did put God this regulation up in the first place?
If, however, they can't show their point that A&E didn't know right from wrong, their accusations stay meaningless, as I see it.

This is why this point is so central to the understanding of the whole story, as I see it.

So now you say "evil" as used in the text... could have encompassed both the aspect of "bad" and the aspect of "morally wrong".
I suggest, we look at other occurences of the underlying Hebrew word in the Bible... to find out if you could be right:

[I must admit that I had to scroll down quite a bit to really find an occurence at which "evil" in the sense of morally wrong does not make any sense... but there it is:]

Genesis 41:3. Evil cows. In this context, the cows couldn't possibly have been evil in the sense of morally wrong. They were just ugly. That's all.
So here it's really evil in the sense of bad, and the connotation of "morally wrong" could not have made any sense at the same time, too.

So, if atheists want to accuse God for putting man into a dilemma he couldn't solve... they need to go ahead and show that the knowledge of the tree wasn't just the distinction between good and bad. Bad like the evil cows in Genesis 41:3.
see above

according to you.

no, I'd like to decline you offer to accept your assumtion. I don't want to say that a cat has the free will humans have concerning moral decisions.

Very well said

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nimos, thank you for inspiring me to think:

the typical atheist argument, as I know it, is blaming God for putting up rules when A&E didn't have a clue about right&wrong, so that they couldn't reasonably have obeyed to rules to begin with.
This is why I say that they might have known right from wrong - before eating the fruit.
Co-poster @Brian2 , in contrast, argues that they were inclined to do wrong... before eating the fruit and getting the knowledge of it. see EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

I respect his apologetics. But I personally tend to take another approach to the garden story.

For me, the issue of evil being understood in the sense of morally wrong is right at the center of the debate we're leading here.

If they can argue that A&E effectively had no idea of the wrongfulness of eating the fruit... why did put God this regulation up in the first place?
If, however, they can't show their point that A&E didn't know right from wrong, their accusations stay meaningless, as I see it.

This is why this point is so central to the understanding of the whole story, as I see it.

So now you say "evil" as used in the text... could have encompassed both the aspect of "bad" and the aspect of "morally wrong".
I suggest, we look at other occurences of the underlying Hebrew word in the Bible... to find out if you could be right:

[I must admit that I had to scroll down quite a bit to really find an occurence at which "evil" in the sense of morally wrong does not make any sense... but there it is:]

Genesis 41:3. Evil cows. In this context, the cows couldn't possibly have been evil in the sense of morally wrong. They were just ugly. That's all.
So here it's really evil in the sense of bad, and the connotation of "morally wrong" could not have made any sense at the same time, too.

So, if atheists want to accuse God for putting man into a dilemma he couldn't solve... they need to go ahead and show that the knowledge of the tree wasn't just the distinction between good and bad. Bad like the evil cows in Genesis 41:3.
see above

according to you.

no, I'd like to decline you offer to accept your assumtion. I don't want to say that a cat has the free will humans have concerning moral decisions.

You are straining at gnats since the story is a myth. At best it is not to be taken literally. Literalists have to find an excuse for their God's behavior. One cannot afford to reason rationally and be a literalists. Since the event did not happen the "why" does not really matter, does it?