• 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!

Did God Show Himself Insecure? (Garden Story)

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Where in any pre non-Biblical account is the part about the reason for clothing themselves? Genesis 3:7-11. Genesis 3:21.

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.
 
Last edited:

Nouman Farooqui

New Member
The story from the Islamic point of view:
God created Man to be on Earth. He placed him in Paradise, warned them that Satan was their enemy and told him not to go near a certain tree. Satan being the enemy of Man tricked the Adam and Eve into eating of the tree. They became aware they had made a mistake and repented. God sent them down to Earth, forgave them their mistake and told them to beware of Satan as he is Man's enemy.

From this we get that Man was always meant to come to Earth. God had known that Adam and Eve would make their mistake and that this is all part of God's plan.
That God forgave Adam and Eve for the sin they had committed as they had repented.
Also Islamic teaching is that God created man expecting him to sin as he wants Man to ask for forgiveness as Allah loves to forgive.
Some Hadiths indicate that this incident was a learning experience for Adam and Eve to beware of Satan as they were inexperienced and didn't know what an enemy was.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
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

For me I think that having the do not touch thing in the middle of the Garden...when you think about the motives of the garden designer...suggests either bad judgment or purposeful design. God wanted to put temptation in their path and it is ambiguous, unless you take a very simplistic view that God wasn't really thinking about it when he set things up, whether God expected a transgression to occur or not.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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?
The starting point is that the God at the beginning of the bible is a primitive henotheistic version, compared to the monotheist God of, say, Isaiah, a much more nuanced and politically aware character, arguably influenced by exposure to the Babylonian court during the captivity.

And as the Garden story makes clear, the God of the Garden is insecure, selfish, vindictive, and not very bright.

It wouldn't matter so much but for the idea, which we first meet among the Jewish intellectuals of Alexandria towards the end of the 2nd century BCE, that sin was somehow present in the Garden story. Even that wouldn't matter so much, if Paul hadn't briefly mentioned it, and even that might not have mattered so much if Augustine of Hippo c. 400 CE hadn't taken the notion and run with it.

The simple fact is that the Garden story nowhere mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, or the need for a redeemer. They simply aren't there, and the story is about something else ─ the childhood of humanity, the bridge between the creation of Adam and Eve and the beginning of Hebrew folk-history.
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.
So the Fall of Man was about bad manners, you say? Interesting notion. The way I hear it from the Christians, it was about sin (though, as I've mentioned, that's simply wrong).
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
The way I hear it from the Christians, it was about sin (though, as I've mentioned, that's simply wrong).

No, I don't think it was about sin (though they did sin - miss the mark)

It was about loosing the authority of the Kingdom of God that was given to them in Genesis 1:26. Man was suppose to have dominion but he handed the reign over to a different spirit or fallen angel. We call him satan.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
well, but if the first five or the "best" five quotes don't show the claim right, it's reasonable to assume that the rest won't either.
actually "out of the blue" would be a little exaggereated. However, they can't show their point, as I see it.

Let's compare it to another Bible verse.
The Bible doesn't say God knows all things... but the Bible says he made all animals: Genesis 1:21.
If it's that simple to present the proof for the notion of God creating "all animals" why is it impossible to show that Bible says God knoweth "all things"? Because it isn't in the Bible, I'd say.;)

Well, you didn't look at all of the quotes. Here's another one:

“…God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything.” 1 John 3:20

"He knows everything" seems pretty clear and straightforward. No ambiguity there.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, I don't think it was about sin (though they did sin - miss the mark)
You've yet to explain how sin is possible if someone has no knowledge of moral good and bad ─ which in the story is the condition of Adam and Eve.

Further, if the story is about sin, why does it never once mention sin? Let alone the Fall of Man? Let alone death entering the world as a result of sin? Let alone the need for a redeemer?

If any of those was relevant to the story, I'd expect them to be specifically mentioned, yet not a single one of them is.
It was about loosing the authority of the Kingdom of God that was given to them in Genesis 1:26.
With all due respect, no, it isn't. The powers of utilizing fish, birds, cattle and so on, which are what are awarded in Genesis 1:26, are never taken from Adam and Eve. You can personally exercise any of them right now.
Man was suppose to have dominion but he handed the reign over to a different spirit or fallen angel. We call him satan.
I don't know where you get this stuff, but I know it's not from the Garden story. There is no identification of the snake with Satan in the story, nor does the snake tell any lies or deceive anyone. As talking snakes go, he's a model of honesty.

Nor does Satan ("adversary") exist at this point. When we first meet him I Chronicles 21:1, his name replaces the expression "the anger of the Lord" in the parallel passage 2 Samuel 24:1. We next meet Satan as a courtier of God's court, making the bet in the opening of Job. In other words, he isn't cast as the super-villain till later.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
They say that God is jealous, so doesn't want the worship of any idol or God. Yet, it may not be jealousy, since God gives mankind rules, and those rules keep mankind safe and just.

In other words, if we worshiped a golden calf, we might not listen to God's commandments. Perhaps God is not insulted by us ignoring him? Perhaps God is infuriated that we make the wrong decisions by not heeding his advice.

For example, in Revelation, God commanded mankind not to attack Iraq, or face God's wrath (such as Revelation 15 (seven plagues, including COVID)).

You can see that President W. Bush either lost faith in God or never had faith in God in the first place. Either way, W. Bush didn't trust God to get his enemies, but, violated still more laws of God ("thou shalt not kill" and "turn the other cheek)." By his lack of faith, President W. Bush doomed us all. All life will be wiped out on earth.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
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................Thomas

I find living in Eden to be more than a garden-size party, or middle of the fridge or middle chair.....
Out of ALL the trees on Earth only one tree was the forbidden tree.
So, it would be more like a generous neighbor who have numerous fruit trees and told you you can come over any time you want and have a much fruit as you want except for just one particular tree.
Would you consider that generous neighbor as Not being generous _______
If there was one piece of forbidden candy and you were in a HUGE warehouse chock full of candy, would avoiding one particular piece of candy be a hardship ________
No insecurity, No bad motive, No deprivation, etc.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
"He knows everything" seems pretty clear and straightforward. No ambiguity there.
God ' can ' know everything but He choose Not to know everything, otherwise we would Not have free-will choices.
In other words, God forces No one to worship Him, thus God chooses Not to know or make our choices for us.
We were created to have our own voluntary free-will choices - Leviticus 1:3;Leviticus 7:16; Numbers 15:3 B; Exodus 35:21-22......
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
(that was easy, so I answer you first ;))
Well, I think it is a good assumption.
as you say: it's an assumption. This can't count as Bible, though.
I mean, where else would their home have been?
maybe they didn't have one.

So, yeah, that was their house,
according to you.
Seriously, it can be a funny story if you look at it that way.
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.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Nimos, thank you for inspiring me to think:
I don't think it's worth going into a discussion of whether the word means evil or bad is best. And honestly, I don't think it matters, it might even be worse in fact.

If something is bad, it's the opposite of something that is good. To me, evil in this context that we are talking, covers all these words like "bad", "wrong" or whatever similar word can be assigned to the idea of evil etc.

Or said in another way, if God say something is wrong, it's not right and therefore not good.
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.
Especially when he doesn't give them the ability to correctly make such choices based on what they believe is right and wrong.
see above

Yes that is correct, but then the responsibility when such being uses their free will to do things, falls on God.
according to you.

Let's say a cat have free will
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.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
The starting point is that the God at the beginning of the bible is a primitive henotheistic version, compared to the monotheist God of, say, Isaiah, a much more nuanced and politically aware character, arguably influenced by exposure to the Babylonian court during the captivity.
for me, it's the same God.
And as the Garden story makes clear, the God of the Garden is insecure, selfish, vindictive, and not very bright.
I disagree.
So the Fall of Man was about bad manners, you say?
For me, it's certainly about bad manners, and I think all humans have done a mistake of this sort. Some (most) call it sin (but I'm neutral here, since I didn't think that through).
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
just for clarification about the type of knowledge that the tree of knowledge was to convey. It's the tree of knowledge of "good and evil".
The word used for evil can mean evil in a sense of "bad" or evil in a sense of "wrong" - morally wrong.
See discussion here: EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

or you may want to take a look at the Hebrew word itself:


Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity
But as I said to you last time, moral good and moral evil are the only readings that make any sense. Otherwise Eve wouldn't know it was bad to stub your toe, poke your eye out, and so on.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Well, you didn't look at all of the quotes. Here's another one:



"He knows everything" seems pretty clear and straightforward. No ambiguity there.
If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. 1 John 3:20.
You missed the if-part.
That was chopping a Bible (half-) verse out of context, as I see it.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
But as I said to you last time, moral good and moral evil are the only readings that make any sense. Otherwise Eve wouldn't know it was bad to stub your toe, poke your eye out, and so on.
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 according to you, the story doesn't make sense if the tree meant anything else than right or wrong.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Ah thank you, that's a good point.

While I don't have an answer, I can only hypothesize: Knoweldge is not a key factor of God's character.
I see him as an artist, (btw I also want to be an artist:cool:): artists often know some things but that's not what they are known for.
Man or Woman is a model of God perhaps, and in order to get a model you need to leave certain details out, otherwise it would be a copy which would encompass too many details in this case;).

Just for your consideration, I recently read a post by @KenS and he says man (or Woman) also has spirit, body and soul just like the trinity. Maybe that's what's meant.
Oh dear, for sure I am not in His image then, since I cannot imagine anybody less artistic than me.

Well, it is easy to see knowledge as a not key factor, when you already know everything. But I mean, He created humans, and so I think He should have seen it coming that Adam/Eve would get bored after a while and wanting to learn something new.

Actually, that nature of ours does not bode well for Heaven. If two persons after a few days destroyed everything, what will happen with several billions with eternity at their disposal? I expect a second fall, I am afraid.

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?

ciao

- viole
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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 according to you, the story doesn't make sense if the tree meant anything else than right or wrong.
What sense does it make otherwise?

Why would God want to keep knowledge of not poking out your own eye, not stubbing your toe, not jumping off cliffs or out of trees, from Adam and Eve?

"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.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You've yet to explain how sin is possible if someone has no knowledge of moral good and bad ─ which in the story is the condition of Adam and Eve.

Further, if the story is about sin, why does it never once mention sin? Let alone the Fall of Man? Let alone death entering the world as a result of sin? Let alone the need for a redeemer?

If any of those was relevant to the story, I'd expect them to be specifically mentioned, yet not a single one of them is.

That is on the assumption that Adam didn't know.

There was a fallen angel that was without God that roamed the earth... it would be like me knowing a friend that is in prison. So when God said, "Don't do that because what will happen is that "in dying you will die" - he understood. IMO.

If my dad said, "Don't cuss or I will wash your mouth with soap"... I immediately know what sin is without having to cuss.

So I disagree with your assessment.

With all due respect, no, it isn't. The powers of utilizing fish, birds, cattle and so on, which are what are awarded in Genesis 1:26, are never taken from Adam and Eve. You can personally exercise any of them right now.

I would have to disagree unless you have a different definition of dominion. The earth no longer produced what it was supposed to produce. The spirit of death reigned instead of the Spirit of Life.

I don't know where you get this stuff, but I know it's not from the Garden story. There is no identification of the snake with Satan in the story, nor does the snake tell any lies or deceive anyone. As talking snakes go, he's a model of honesty.

Nor does Satan ("adversary") exist at this point. When we first meet him I Chronicles 21:1, his name replaces the expression "the anger of the Lord" in the parallel passage 2 Samuel 24:1. We next meet Satan as a courtier of God's court, making the bet in the opening of Job. In other words, he isn't cast as the super-villain till later.

God's names were expressed throughout the Bible. When God said "I AM" and then later said "I AM RAPHA" and then again "I AM SHALOM" - different names at different points but the same entity.

Jesus called him Satan.

God always wanted man to have dominion and, in essence, man continues to try to take dominion even if it is called "climate control". But without God, dominion always creates problems.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is on the assumption that Adam didn't know.

There was a fallen angel that was without God that roamed the earth... it would be like me knowing a friend that is in prison. So when God said, "Don't do that because what will happen is that "in dying you will die" - he understood. IMO.

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

If my dad said, "Don't cuss or I will wash your mouth with soap"... I immediately know what sin is without having to cuss.

So I disagree with your assessment.

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

I would have to disagree unless you have a different definition of dominion. The earth no longer produced what it was supposed to produce. The spirit of death reigned instead of the Spirit of Life.

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.
 
Top