They will say, definition is not judgement. It is already included in the concept.
And in accepting that definition they make a judgement.
Asserting that âHumans donât have right to judge Godâ is making a judgement concerning god. Saying itâs true that âGod is omnipotent, Omniscient and Benevolentâ is making a judgement about god.
You canât escape making that judgement and coherently say anything about god.
Following is a conceptually sound interpretation of the narrative:
Prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good AND evil, Adam and Eve only knew good. As such, evil thoughts never even entered their minds, so they would only do good. In directing them to eat from the tree, the snake introduced an evil thought into their minds. At that point, they lacked a frame of reference to be able to discern good from evil. By eating from the tree they also knew evil. As such, evil thoughts would enter their minds, so they would do both good and evil. God did not remove them to punish them, but because they no longer belonged there.
Also, if taken literally instead of allegorically, then ultimately God is responsible.
1 Like
There are two different stories of the creation of man. In Genesis 1 God makes them, male and female in âour own imageâ. (1-26) Note the use of both the singular and plural and both male and female with regard to both humans and gods.
In Genesis 2 God forms the man from the dust of the ground and breaths into him the breath of life. (2.7) He then forms woman by taking a rib from man. (2.22)
In neither account are we told that God or gods created man with the desire to know. Man determines his own ways.
God gave Adam and Eve free will. They chose to sin.
Itâs such a strange story, and I have trouble imagining how the Hebrews of the era understood it.
For instance, God does not forbid them to eat of the tree of life, but only the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once they have eaten the forbidden fruit, he worries about this immensely. He casts them out of the garden and sets cherubim and a flaming sword to keep them from getting anywhere near the tree of life. But before he didnât even bother telling them not to eat from it.
And the principal effect on Adam and Eve of eating the forbidden fruit seems to be awareness of their nakedness. Before eating, they were unclothed just like the other animals in the garden, and saw no problem. When they hear God walking in the garden, they hide not because they had disobeyed him, and expect him to be angry, but because they think he should not see them naked. This is usually described as shame, but is that what it is? And thereâs something really odd about God giving them clothes made from animal skinâthey cover their nakedness with the nakedness of animals, which they used to share. Thereâs no mention of what God might be wearing.
There are predictable things going on here, in the way of providing mythological explanations for things people knowâwhy childbirth is painful, why people wear clothes but animals donât, why humans engage in agriculture (which is a really quaint touch, the assumption that agriculture is automatic rather than a late development), why snakes are so weird and why we donât get along with them.
But the whole package, humanity passing from a somewhat blissful existence much closer to the way animals live, with everything we need provided by this garden, which may require some tending but not the sweaty work of agriculture, to a state of proto-civilization, clothes and work and pain and a changed relationship to the earth and at least one sort of animal, all on account of our disobedience, meaning how humanity lives is not what God originally intended at all but a punishment, what kind of story is this?
Why the âknowledge of good and evilâ, specifically, do you think? Whatâs the symbolism here?
A parable of âthe human conditionâ, perhaps?
There are interpretations saying that it is not God creating Adam. It is Adam creating God in his mind. If you look at the God image, it is in the shape of human brain.
It is Adam imagining what God might look like in his own mind. Hence it is not the real God image.
Accepting definition is a passive mental operation. You are accepting the definition which already had been made by someone in the past.
Making judgement is an active mental operation. You are making judgement about something now with your own will and intention.
Hence the two mental operations are totally different operations in nature.
Well, if you are open-minded, then you have to accept that God could be right or wrong! That is a dichotomy, and you cannot avoid it. You need to find an error in my analysis if you think God was right; otherwise, we reach the conclusion that God was wrong and responsible for the sin.
My idea at the moment about the point is that God cannot be responsible for sin, when sin means offending God. God wouldnât possible do things that would offend him, when God is the wisest and omniscient entity in the universe by definition.
It must be someone other than God could be responsible for the sin.
But Adam and Eve were not aware of what they were doing due to their ignorance. The serpent was encouraging Eve to eat the fruit, but it is not directly responsible for the sin, since it didnât force anyone to eat it, or ate the fruit.
So no one is responsible for the sin here. It looks like a case that the misleading suggestion seems to be coming from misunderstanding the concept of God and sin.
Adam and Eve either have the desire to eat the fruit, or the story does not make any sense at all.
Hi, and welcome to the forum. We are all aware of that, but to show that Adam and Eve are responsible for the sin, you need to find an error in my analysis.
Itâs a depiction of God and Adam.
What if the situation was a setup by God to ensure that Adam and Eve fail?
Cool, so Adam, Eve, and the Serpent are not responsible for the sin.
If no one is responsible for the sin, then God was wrong to punish them. Agree or disagree?
Yes, of course they have the desire to eat the fruit, but it is not just any fruit. It is desirable to be wise. More to the point, God is not responsible for this desire.
A depiction of Adamâs imagination.
No, itâs a depiction of God and Adam.
Since God knew ahead of time that Eve would eat the fruit, he could have just removed the tree if he didnât want her to eat it. So heâs responsible.
1 Like