• 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!

We deserve eternal punishment ?

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
I’m reading Genesis 2 & 3 again after many times.

I have pretty much purged religion and religions doctrine from my mind, so each time I read it, it gets better and I understand more of what is being said.


I want to talk about the fruit problem.


Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ok, that’s not so bad. We are given free choice to eat from various trees, and we are warned that we should not eat from a particular tree because it may be harmful to us.

It’s like my mother saying to me when I’m young: “You may play anywhere you want in our front yard, but DO NOT play on the highway, for on that day you shalt surely get run over by a car and die.”


Playing in the highway is NOT a sin, just something that has a bad consequence for me, so a loving mother will say not to do it.

Wouldn’t a loving God just be looking after his child in the same way?

Where does the religion get sin and punishment from this simple statement?


Now, moving to Genesis 3 you find that the man actually ate from this tree, and as a result God told him what would be the results of his choice. Notice, he doesn’t die. But other consequences happen:


Genesis 3:17-19: “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”


This is like my mother coming to me in the hospital after I disobeyed her and played in the street, and saying: “Well, now you’re going to be stuck in that wheel chair the rest of your life, and you will have various hardships”


There is NO condemnation. There is no eternal punishment because I played in the street. More likely, my mother is sad that I did not obey her, because she wanted my best, but I made my free choice and now she still loves me just as much as before, and has surely NOT piled additional punishment on me.


This is my question (please use the rules below to answer)

Why is it that religion can turn a beautiful story of love and care into something so, ummm, religious and ugly? (Eternal punishment because of sin is ugly, and wrong)


Please. I don’t need you to quote Paul please. If you want to answer, only use words from the entire Old Testament and words from Jesus.

I am familiar with Romans 5 and believe it completely, and do not need you to quote it. Nothing Paul says changes my perception. Paul can be so easily misunderstood since he had to speak to children as well as adults, and so many like to interpret everything as if they were still children.


1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

By the way, I corrected my mistake. Religious concepts still creep in.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iymus

Active Member
Playing in the highway is NOT a sin, just something that has a bad consequence for me, so a loving mother will say not to do it.

1. Sin is said to be transgression of the law and you transgressed the law of your mother. Sin has bad consequences.

1Jn 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Wouldn’t a loving God just be looking after his child in the same way?

2. Seems loving, said not to do something against one's best interest.

Where does the religion get sin and punishment from this simple statement?

3. Responsibility, Actions, Consequences, Accountability.

Now, moving to Genesis 3 you find that the man actually ate from this tree, and as a result God told him what would be the results of his choice. Notice, he doesn’t die. But other consequences happen:

4. Gen 3 perhaps someone else covers
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I’m reading Genesis 2 & 3 again after many times.

I have pretty much purged religion and religions doctrine from my mind, so each time I read it, it gets better and I understand more of what is being said.


I want to talk about the fruit problem.


Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ok, that’s not so bad. We are given free choice to eat from various trees, and we are warned that we should not eat from a particular tree because it may be harmful to us.

It’s like my mother saying to me when I’m young: “You may play anywhere you want in our front yard, but DO NOT play on the highway, for on that day you shalt surely get run over by a car and die.”


Playing in the highway is NOT a sin, just something that has a bad consequence for me, so a loving mother will say not to do it.

Wouldn’t a loving God just be looking after his child in the same way?

Where does the religion get sin and punishment from this simple statement?


Now, moving to Genesis 3 you find that the man actually ate from this tree, and as a result God told him what would be the results of his choice. Notice, he doesn’t die. But other consequences happen:


Genesis 3:17-19: “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”


This is like my mother coming to me in the hospital after I disobeyed her and played in the street, and saying: “Well, now you’re going to be stuck in that wheel chair the rest of your life, and you will have various hardships”


There is NO condemnation. There is no eternal punishment because I played in the street. More likely, my mother is sad that I did not obey her, because she wanted my best, but I made my free choice and now she still loves me just as much as before, and has surely NOT piled additional punishment on me.


This is my question (please use the rules below to answer)

Why is it that religion can turn a beautiful story of love and care into something so, ummm, religious and ugly? (Eternal punishment because of sin is ugly, and wrong)


Please. I don’t need you to quote Paul please. If you want to answer, only use words from the entire Old Testament and words from Jesus.

I am familiar with Romans 5 and believe it completely, and do not need you to quote it. Nothing Paul says changes my perception. Paul can be so easily misunderstood since he had to speak to children as well as adults, and so many like to interpret everything as if they were still children.


1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

By the way, I corrected my mistake. Religious concepts still creep in.
Gerry, the Genesis story is an allegory of the double-edged nature of growing up.

When we were tiny children, we had no concept of right or wrong: we were innocent. But then we reached the age of reason and knew the difference between right and wrong. But too often we still did wrong, in spite of that knowledge. We had "eaten the fruit of the tree" and lost our innocence. Now, we were responsible - and held accountable - for our actions.

When Man arose from the other animals, at some point he acquired a moral sense and the responsibility to act morally, which he often failed to do. That is what this story is about - a parable of lost innocence.

It also laments the adult human condition, working by the sweat of our brow etc. I think we all remember this feeling as we grew up and had to get a job to survive.

That, at any rate, is how I see this story. All the stuff about death entering the world is obviously not literally true (without death there could be no evolution and no Man in the first place), nor do I think that God really wanted to keep Man ignorant of good and evil.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I’m reading Genesis 2 & 3 again after many times.

I have pretty much purged religion and religions doctrine from my mind, so each time I read it, it gets better and I understand more of what is being said.

Ah...the light of truth is shining through the fog :)

I want to talk about the apple problem.

Yes...(it wasn’t an apple BTW). The fruit of this tree was never identified because it didn’t matter. It is what the fruit of that tree represented that was the issue.

God, as Creator, had the sovereign right to set the limits of the free will that he had given to those whom he had assigned as caretakers of his earthly creation. Giving humans his qualities and attributes would make their stewardship over the earth akin to what he would do himself in any given situation. Free will gave them choices to make after evaluating the circumstances. It was meant to be a gift, but it had to be exercised within parameters set by God.

Genesis 2:16-17 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ok, that’s not so bad. We are given free choice to eat from various trees, and we are warned that we should not eat from a particular tree because it may be harmful to us.

Actually, that tree was placed in the garden as God’s exclusive property. It was prominently displayed for that reason....its presence was important. God had given the humans access to every other tree (including the tree of life) but this one was not theirs for the taking. It represented God’s sovereignty which, if treated with disobedience and disrespect, carried a heavy penalty. To take that fruit was grand theft....which was the only cause of death mentioned in Eden.

Part of the serpent’s appeal to the woman was to dismantle the death penalty, telling her that she would not die, thereby calling God a liar. God told the man that he would 'return to the dust from which he was created'. He would simply go back to where he came from. (No heaven or hell was ever mentioned)

It’s like my mother saying to me when I’m young: “You may play anywhere you want in our front yard, but DO NOT play on the highway, for on that day you shalt surely get run over by a car and die.”

Playing in the highway is NOT a sin, just something that has a bad consequence for me, so a loving mother will say not to do it.

Wouldn’t a loving God just be looking after his child in the same way?

Where does the religion get sin and punishment from this simple statement?

That is not a bad analogy, because eating fruit was totally permissible.....nothing sinful about it.....but it was disrespect for God’s personal property, his sovereign right to set the limits of their free will, and God’s knowing how that abuse could be catastrophic for them and their children. He was trying to protect them from taking their free will beyond his limits.

Where the sin and punishment comes in, is how God handled the situation. He could have just quashed the rebellion and carried out the penalty there and then, but the issues raise by the devil would have remained unanswered. All it would have proven is that God is more powerful. Satan never questioned God's power.

Since there would be nothing to stop another satan from coming forward and raising all the same issues, God determined to allow this rebellion to run its course and to allow the devil a free hand to prove himself to be the better god and world ruler that he wanted to be. By obeying him, the humans had chosen their new sovereign, so world rulership was handed it over to him (Luke 4:5-8) and God allowed all the time necessary for him to provide proof of his claims. The devil has guided mankind through all manner of self rule but no form of human rulership to date has proven to be successful. We are actually witnessing the death of democracy right now....another dismal failure.
According to Bible prophesy, there is just one form of rulership yet to try....a one world government...globalization, (which will end in utter chaos) before God brings in the rulership of his kingdom to rectify all the damage. (Daniel 2:44)

Now, moving to Genesis 3 you find that the man actually ate from this tree, and as a result God told him what would be the results of his choice. Notice, he doesn’t die. But other consequences happen:

Genesis 3:17-19: “cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”

What did God say in his original warning?
Genesis 2:16-17....”for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.” Was God lying?

in view of Peter’s words we have an answer to what a “day” can mean to God...
2 Peter3:8....”However, do not let this escape your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

If you read through the genealogies of those who lived before the flood of Noah’s day, you will find one very clear fact....not one of them made it to 1000 years of age. So that being the case, God’s warning to Adam is correct...he was 930 when he died.....so they did in fact, die within God's counting of a “day”.

There is NO condemnation. There is no eternal punishment because I played in the street. More likely, my mother is sad that I did not obey her, because she wanted my best, but I made my free choice and now she still loves me just as much as before, and has surely NOT piled additional punishment on me.

I believe that it is important to understand what the penalty meant for Adam and his wife, compared to what happened to their children. Right there in Eden, God provided a prophesy that revealed his solution to this problem. Genesis 3:15 outlined a scenario that was not fully understood until Jesus came, and he was delivered a “heel” wound (somewhat disabling but not fatal. His death was painful but not permanent) whilst the “head” wound inflicted on the serpent would be fatal. This pertains to what is foretold in Revelation where Jesus gives the devil and his hordes their final destruction in the lake of fire....a symbol of eternal death. No one returns from the lake of fire....whatever goes in there never comes out.

Since Adam’s children inherited sin and death from their parents who were not hamstrung by a sinful nature, Christ’s sacrifice cannot apply to Adam and Eve. What they did was wilful and deliberate....what we do is the result of our inheritance. Christ’s sacrifice was for us, not them. On that basis, we can be forgiven, they could not. Their death is permanent, as God indicated when he sentenced them. Our death is temporary because Jesus has promised a resurrection. (John 5:28-29)

This is my question (please use the rules below to answer)

Why is it that religion can turn a beautiful story of love and care into something so, ummm, religious and ugly? (Eternal punishment because of sin is ugly, and wrong)

There is no doubt that the Bible speaks of sin and eternal punishment....but what it is makes a big difference to our understanding of God’s justice.

There is only “life or death” offered in the Bible. Under God's laws, each breach had a stated penalty. But the highest penalty for any breach, was death....no torture or even incarceration was ever involved.
Nowhere was there ever offered a “heaven or hell” scenario. So there is only everlasting life...or everlasting death....just these.

1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

This is exactly why we need an accurate knowledge of exactly what happened in Eden, exactly how we were affected, and exactly how God sent us a rescue mission. Misunderstanding how all this of that played out has led to a multitude of misinterpretation and misunderstanding IMO.

“Religious and ugly” is a good description....since God but is neither. He is a loving Creator who dealt with rebellion in both his angelic and human families. Both will have learned valuable lessons concerning their use of free will and the consequences of its abuse, first hand. Precedents will be set for all time to come, so that once we return to God’s original purpose for our assignment here, nothing will ever spoil God’s plans for the future again...whatever they may be. No matter what God has in store for the rest of eternity, we know that disobedience will never disturb our future again. There will be no basis for it.

Hope that answers your question.....
 
Last edited:

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Gerry, the Genesis story is an allegory of the double-edged nature of growing up.

When we were tiny children, we had no concept of right or wrong: we were innocent. But then we reached the age of reason and knew the difference between right and wrong. But too often we still did wrong, in spite of that knowledge. We had "eaten the fruit of the tree" and lost our innocence. Now, we were responsible - and held accountable - for our actions.

When Man arose from the other animals, at some point he acquired a moral sense and the responsibility to act morally, which he often failed to do. That is what this story is about - a parable of lost innocence.

It also laments the adult human condition, working by the sweat of our brow etc. I think we all remember this feeling as we grew up and had to get a job to survive.

That, at any rate, is how I see this story. All the stuff about death entering the world is obviously not literally true (without death there could be no evolution and no Man in the first place), nor do I think that God really wanted to keep Man ignorant of good and evil.
Wow.
You’re one of the very few people I have ever encountered that see that story as I do.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member

,
[/QUOTE]
Definitely like your chart.
Things are going in the right direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

exchemist

Veteran Member
Wow.
You’re one of the very few people I have ever encountered that see that story as I do.
Oh I think it has been a fairly widespread view, actually, throughout history. It was my Catholic parish priest, back in the early 1960s who told me original sin was about Man's predisposition to evil. And the rest of the imagery, including the double-edged nature of it, has been explored amply over the centuries. On another thread I referred to the Exultet at the Catholic Easter Vigil, which sings of O Felix Culpa, O happy fault, that earned for us so great a Redeemer.

I think the Genesis story is full of poetic insight into the human condition. That is the "truth" it contains. But I do not take it literally.
 

Jeremiah Ames

Well-Known Member
Oh I think it has been a fairly widespread view, actually, throughout history. It was my Catholic parish priest, back in the early 1960s who told me original sin was about Man's predisposition to evil. And the rest of the imagery, including the double-edged nature of it, has been explored amply over the centuries. On another thread I referred to the Exultet at the Catholic Easter Vigil, which sings of O Felix Culpa, O happy fault, that earned for us so great a Redeemer.

I think the Genesis story is full of poetic insight into the human condition. That is the "truth" it contains. But I do not take it literally.
Thank you for your insights.
The Lord’s wisdom shines through you.
 

LAGoff

Member
Well, I'm Jewish, so the whole 'deserve eternal punishment' thing is a non-starter. I prefer to call them problems.
I was told that chapters two and three are about God giving Adam and Eve the choice stay in the Garden (which is a kind of holding/middle world between Heaven and our world) or come to this 'lower' world.
Adam wanted to stay in this middle world, whereas Eve (Eve/Hava means life by the way-- hint-hint) wanted to come down further. She saw the light/life, and Adam went along too.*
Obviously, if you come down here, you will have all the problems mentioned. If you accept coming here, the question then becomes why would anyone want to do that instead of staying in the Garden?
The best answer -- the most Jewish answer for me -- is that we do it for God. I wouldn't do it for any other reason.
He created the 'heavens' and the earth. Did He create the earth for punishment and Heaven for reward? It would seem that many major religions see the main goal as getting the hell out of here. Judaism however says l'hayim (to life!). This is where 'the life' is, so it's is 'good' -- even 'very good' -- to come here.
As God said in Exodus 24:8: "Make Me a dwelling place so that I may dwell among you." This is what it's all about! Making the world a place where God desires / is comfortable coming down to-- which is why He created the heavens and the earth in the first place.

* the first human conversation: Adam: "I don't need this." Eve: "I know; but God does."
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
The human condition wasn't described until Cicero. Genesis was before Rome/Babylon.
That's a ridiculous statement. Many of the ancient epics and mythical stories address aspects of the human condition. So does Genesis too, in a very particular way.
 
Top