Jump to content

Menu

A question about God


Recommended Posts

Yeah, I believe in human nature, as in most humans behave in similar ways. But,...the idea of ME being inherently ****ed to Hell (thus in need of saving) because of something SHE did? NO.

 

That's like, "Martha ran a red light so Cyndi has to pay the ticket" (Centuries later). :confused:

 

Cyndi...it's not because of what SHE did! We are all sinners in Adam, not Eve. Disagree as you will but disagree on what's actually taught.:D Adam was our representative NOT Eve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those things that never made sense to me. You have to first buy into the premise that we could inherit sin and are therefore due punishment because of it. Of course, that is AFTER the belief that all of mankind came from the incestuous relationship of Eve and her two sons. :001_huh:

 

Actually scripture says for ALL have sinned. Not just Adam and Eve. Scripture also says that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. Genetics wouldn't have been as degraded at that point so inbreeding wouldn't have been as big of an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because instead of asking for forgiveness she blamed it on the snake, same with Adam he blamed it on Eve.

 

Actually Adam blamed God.

 

Genesis 3:12

12*And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

Edited by Excelsior! Academy
Quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my 15 year old daughter..

 

My daughter asked me this question about God and forgiveness, She has been told that God could forgive anyone of their sin if they believe. If they believe then child molesters, rapists, theives, murderers etc can be welcomed into Heaven. She wants to know why would God not forgive Eve? In her words all she did was eat an apple but people who have done very horrible things are forgiven and given second chances so why was God so quick to punish Eve?

 

Eve got the same second chance everyone else got. A lifetime of earthly aggravation and then the welcome mat to heaven with repentance & belief. Plus I don't take the apple literally, I think we don't know what the disobedience consisted of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your daughter's question sounds like she is essentially asking - "why didn't God give Eve a do-over?" This perspective is slightly different from the others I've read here. The reason is the same reason that God can't lie. When Adam/Eve chose to introduce sin into God's perfect creation, His holiness and justice could not just overlook it. However, His mercy, grace and loving-kindness made a path to reconciliation and forgivness, redemption and return to right standing through Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your daughter's question sounds like she is essentially asking - "why didn't God give Eve a do-over?" This perspective is slightly different from the others I've read here. The reason is the same reason that God can't lie. When Adam/Eve chose to introduce sin into God's perfect creation, His holiness and justice could not just overlook it. However, His mercy, grace and loving-kindness made a path to reconciliation and forgivness, redemption and return to right standing through Jesus Christ.

:iagree: And when they realized their nakedness and hid in the garden, it was God who reached out to them, sacrificing a lamb for a covering and wanting a relationship with them. They may have been unable to stay in the garden as a consequence, but they were not banned from the presence of God. The consequences were spelled out before they ate the apple - just like consequences are spelled out to our children - God didn't "do" this to them - their actions were responsible. And God did forgive - or he would have let them sit in their scratchy fig leaves, hiding - He wanted them to return to Him, which is a theme in the entire Old Testament. He continued calling them back time after time. He NEVER forsook them and said "enough". There were many consequences, as mentioned earlier, but again God continued to call them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyndi...it's not because of what SHE did! We are all sinners in Adam, not Eve. Disagree as you will but disagree on what's actually taught.:D Adam was our representative NOT Eve.

 

:001_huh: I'm a gonna have to check into that one.

 

Yeah, I believe in human nature, as in most humans behave in similar ways. But,...the idea of ME being inherently ****ed to Hell (thus in need of saving) because of something SHE did? NO.

 

That's like, "Martha ran a red light so Cyndi has to pay the ticket" (Centuries later). :confused:

 

No. It means you have inherited her human nature. You don't have to pay her ticket. She already paid her ticket. You inherited her tendency to get tickets.

 

Ick. Terrible analogy. :tongue_smilie:

 

I agree that belief in itself is not enough. The Bible says that even the demons believe, and tremble. Repentance is necessary. But if some sort of penance or restitution is required, then what is the purpose of Christ's death? And what do you make of 1 John 1:9?

 

:001_huh: That if we confess our sins, He will forgive us? Confession is an acknowledgement of our sin, of our desire to heal our relationship with God and make it right. To sin no more. Otherwise what are we confessing and what is the point?

 

:iagree: And when they realized their nakedness and hid in the garden, it was God who reached out to them, sacrificing a lamb for a covering and wanting a relationship with them. They may have been unable to stay in the garden as a consequence, but they were not banned from the presence of God. The consequences were spelled out before they ate the apple - just like consequences are spelled out to our children - God didn't "do" this to them - their actions were responsible. And God did forgive - or he would have let them sit in their scratchy fig leaves, hiding - He wanted them to return to Him, which is a theme in the entire Old Testament. He continued calling them back time after time. He NEVER forsook them and said "enough". There were many consequences, as mentioned earlier, but again God continued to call them...

 

This is very much how excommunication is viewed in the RCC. It is not something the church does to others. It is an acknowledgement of what they have done to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I believe in human nature, as in most humans behave in similar ways. But,...the idea of ME being inherently ****ed to Hell (thus in need of saving) because of something SHE did? NO.

 

That's like, "Martha ran a red light so Cyndi has to pay the ticket" (Centuries later). :confused:

 

May I reiterate? "In the Orthodox Christian faith, this is not the understanding of what happened. We do not believe in original sin." The oldest Christian church did not and does not teach the concept of original sin. It does teach that "all have sinned" from the beginning of time (what is known as "ancestral sin") -- and I think it's pretty clear that this is true if sin is properly defined; it's not a huge condemnation thing, more a statement of fact -- but not that we are still now being charged with and paying for the sins of Adam & Eve. They just started the sin trend. Here's an article called "The View of Sin in the Early Church" if you're interested at all.

Edited by milovaný
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I believe in human nature, as in most humans behave in similar ways. But,...the idea of ME being inherently ****ed to Hell (thus in need of saving) because of something SHE did? NO.

 

That's like, "Martha ran a red light so Cyndi has to pay the ticket" (Centuries later). :confused:

 

I hope that the others clarified that for you. WE didn't inherit HER sin, we inherited the propensity TO sin, we have these egos and they're quite selfish...they like their way. Eve paid her price, she got the boot from the garden.

 

Martha's ticket analogy is actually pretty awesome. ;) We inherited Eve's wanting to speed.:D

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my 15 year old daughter..

 

My daughter asked me this question about God and forgiveness, She has been told that God could forgive anyone of their sin if they believe. If they believe then child molesters, rapists, theives, murderers etc can be welcomed into Heaven. She wants to know why would God not forgive Eve? In her words all she did was eat an apple but people who have done very horrible things are forgiven and given second chances so why was God so quick to punish Eve?

 

I've not read through all the answers, so this has probably already been stated...

 

God certainly could forgive Eve. We have no reason to believe He didn't. Certainly, Eve demonstrated her faith in the promise of redemption that God gave in Genesis 3:15, and for that matter, so did Adam.

 

Look, at the end of the list of consequences given was this (3:19):

 

In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

Till you return to the ground,

For out of it you were taken;

For dust you are,

And to dust you shall return.â€

 

And what does Adam do immediately after?? His response shows he understood the redemption promised in Genesis 3:15 without a doubt...

 

20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

 

God just tells them they're going to die, and what does Adam do? He names his wife "life".

 

The object lesson continues:

21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

 

They saw that there was going be defeat over sin and death, and that God would provide the covering.

 

So was Eve on board? Did she understand? I think so! Look at her response to having Cain: I have gotten a man from the LORD! She was wrong, of course. He wasn't going to be the one. In fact, in the following chapters, we see a beautiful story of the development of the 2 groups described in Genesis 3:15. We see the "seed of the serpant" in the wicked line of Cain to Lamech, and the "seed if the women" in the line of Seth to Noah, and we the triumph of the righteous over the wicked, within that ark, which is Christ.

 

 

You can see the entire gospel, repeatedly, throughout Genesis alone. Don't let anyone tell you that forgiveness and redemption aren't part of the Old Testament as much as they are of the New. You can see the life of Christ, in detail, if you only look at the life of Joseph. The New Testament is, in many respects, a Divine commentary on the Old Testament.

 

You daughter also needs to understand that forgiveness isn't equivilent to a lack of consequences. There were consequences to Eve's actions, and God's righteousness required that. But God isn't without mercy.

 

I think it's also important, when considering these things, to step back and look for the central theme of the Bible. Is it really salvation? Because if saving people was the only point, then we've got to admit, God didn't do a great job because there's far more people who don't believe and commit themselves to God than there are that do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, OP, whatever you do; acknowledge;

 

1. That the Adam and Eve story seems simplistic and weird.

 

2. That it might seem patriarchical.

 

3. That God's response to the tree/apple seems petty

 

4. That it seems like a set up from an all powerful god

 

5. That your daughter's questions make sense

 

Even if you believe in traditional Christianity, it is important to be honest about the seeming dichotomies of the faith.

 

The Adam and Ev3 story and the foriveness of HEINOUS acts is a terribly confusing dichotomy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an additional note, a 15-year-old is old enough to learn about the doctrine of justification. Here are some articles. I like Sproul and Ligonier because they make difficult doctrines accessible to everyone. (I'm not sure what denomination you are and these articles are from a definite Reformed Protestant point of view but it at least gives you a place to start.)

 

Like Joanne pointed out, her questions deserves more than a pat answer. One of the nice things about living years and years after all this stuff happened is that we get the benefit of some pretty great thinkers who have gone before us. She isn't the first one to ask this question and it isn't a stupid one. It's important to know the "why" behind your beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I reiterate? "In the Orthodox Christian faith, this is not the understanding of what happened. We do not believe in original sin." The oldest Christian church did not and does not teach the concept of original sin. It does teach that "all have sinned" from the beginning of time (what is known as "ancestral sin") -- and I think it's pretty clear that this is true if sin is properly defined; it's not a huge condemnation thing, more a statement of fact -- but not that we are still now being charged with and paying for the sins of Adam & Eve. They just started the sin trend. Here's an article called "The View of Sin in the Early Church" if you're interested at all.

 

You know, I think the idea of ancestral sin is quite different than what you see in some Protestant and especially Reformed circles, but I am not sure it is so different from the idea as it exists in older Western Christianity. To say we inherit death because of a sin by the first people doesn't seem to be much different than to say we inherit a marked nature from the first peoples' sin, and that both these things make it very difficult to avoid personal sin. In both cases something we didn't do affects us through a sort of inheritance and means we need God to reach out to us in order to heal that inheritance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those things that never made sense to me. You have to first buy into the premise that we could inherit sin and are therefore due punishment because of it. Of course, that is AFTER the belief that all of mankind came from the incestuous relationship of Eve and her two sons. :001_huh:

 

It really isn't clear whether there was incestuous stuff going on. It may have been that Adam and Eve were part of a larger population which did not all have a relationship with God, or something similar. Also, while taboos on incest are powerful, we seem in the modern age to feel them very strongly. Cousin marriages were common a few generations ago but today most find them yucky. There are many cases in small human populations where much closer relations marry than is common now and in animal populations they can sometimes become very small whch means close inbreeding. We can't assume others in far away places and times have quite the same feelings about this as we do.

 

Taboos around incest tend to be connected to extending familial relations and avoiding physical issues. The former clearly wouldn't be the case in a scenario where there were no other people to marry. Some feel that the latter was not initially an issue either as early on after the fall genetic mutations causing problems were not present. If true it would make the second issue for incest taboos less important.

 

The idea that we are all due punishment due to Adam and Eve's sin is one that belongs to only some Christian groups, it is by no means universal (I would certianly not say it myself). There is a logic to it though.

 

One way it is described is that the fall changed Adam and Eve's nature, separating them from God. That is, their nature as God made them was to be with God and by choosing otherwise they changed that nature. We all share in that same human nature - that is what makes us human beings or people. We, therefore, inherit that separation from God along with opposable thumbs and big brains and the capacity to love.

 

This seems reasonable to most people as they experience it - we feel in some sense alienated from ourselves and from our spiritual source. We feel unloved. We can't do the things we know we should. And it seems this is something we were born with, not something we have somehow caused. That experience - not a bad act itself done by Eve or even our wn bad act - is what is best understood as original sin.

 

Being ****ed or going to Hell or however you want to describe it really means in some sense being separated from God. That is why some use the language of saying we are born ****ed - we are born in this condition of being separated from God, it is part of our fallen human nature, and it is only by God's movement to bring us back to him we are saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the other posts. God does forgive child molesters, etc. IF they truly repent and turn from their sins. That involves a TOTAL change of heart and a walk in the upright. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross beside him. God also forgave Eve and he blessed her and Adam long after the original sin. There is a HUGE difference between forgiveness and punishment. Jesus forgiving the thief didn't take the guy off the cross, or stop his death - he still endured punishment for his sins. Eve was punished, but forgiven because she did love and follow the Lord. Sin is something we all do and we can all be forgiven of IF we repent and trust in Christ's sacrifice for us.

 

An example: A woman has a affair. She feels convicted of how wrong it is, stops the affair and asks God's forgiveness. God forgives her - washes away her sin. However, He still may allow her to suffer punishment for her sin - maybe her husband finds out...or maybe a co-worker tells her boss and she loses her job over it, etc.

 

Another example: My son gets in trouble but comes and tells me he is sorry (and truly means it) - I will forgive him...but he will still be punished. God is our heavenly Father and his punishments are always meant for us to learn from our sins and draw closer to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, if god is all knowing then he knew it was gonna happen, anyway and just set her up to fail, no? :confused:

 

God did know what Eve would do before she did it. God also knew what Jesus would do before He did it. Praise God, he gave us a savior. God knew that, given free-will, we would sin - just like Eve. Was he supposed to give us a pain-free, protected and perfect life while we did vile and horrible things??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, God "punished" both Adam and Eve. :)

 

Secondly, as in all relationships, SIN changes things and those first sins changed humanity's relationship to God. Even though they could no longer stay in God's presence in the garden, God gave them coverings and protected them as they went out into the world. He still blessed them in many ways.

 

We do not know specifically if Adam and Eve repented of their sin, but it's hinted that they at the very least continue in obedience to Him by offering sacrifices--God's requirement now that they cannot be in God's holy presence--because their sons continue the practice themselves. Sin must be paid for and before Jesus' sacrifice, *those* sacrifices atoned for the sin and God determined what would be pleasing to Himself. But He also made it possible for people to do it, even though it wasn't always easy!

 

Thirdly, as far as murderers, rapists, etc. we see the example of the thief on the cross next to Jesus during the crucifixion. What happens? The thief acknowledges and accepts WHO Jesus is and that He is innocently giving His life. Jesus SEES his heart and tells him he will be in paradise! That is awesome and gives hope to anyone. Our own sense of justice, warped that it is, honestly, sees anyone worse than us in sinful practice and feel that it isn't fair that a person could sin "so horribly" and still get to be in paradise! But God's standard is holiness. We cannot reach it ourselves and that's why we need Jesus.

 

God also sees into the heart in ways that we cannot. A person truly changed by Him would not continue to live his or her life the same way (maybe not immediately at first, but change would be EVIDENT on the inside and out). We know that God's sense of justice is perfect. We do not know that every deathbed confession of faith is sincere, but HE does. We should want hearts to change and not hold on to the idea that anyone is not good enough to get into heaven because WE do not "do good" to get into heaven ourselves! So trusting in God's perfect standard being applied to hearts we cannot fully know as He can eases my mind on the subject a lot!

 

:iagree: THis is well written and states my beliefs just perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I think the idea of ancestral sin is quite different than what you see in some Protestant and especially Reformed circles, but I am not sure it is so different from the idea as it exists in older Western Christianity. To say we inherit death because of a sin by the first people doesn't seem to be much different than to say we inherit a marked nature from the first peoples' sin, and that both these things make it very difficult to avoid personal sin. In both cases something we didn't do affects us through a sort of inheritance and means we need God to reach out to us in order to heal that inheritance.

 

Very, very possible! I have no history with older, more historical churches. All the churches I was a part of prior to converting to Orthodoxy had a history of about 100 years or less. Point well taken!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my 15 year old daughter..

 

My daughter asked me this question about God and forgiveness, She has been told that God could forgive anyone of their sin if they believe. If they believe then child molesters, rapists, theives, murderers etc can be welcomed into Heaven. She wants to know why would God not forgive Eve? In her words all she did was eat an apple but people who have done very horrible things are forgiven and given second chances so why was God so quick to punish Eve?

 

 

Your daughter seems to have two misconceptions:

 

1. First, as others have said, God never said He didn't forgive Eve. Parents discipline their children all the time, doesn't mean they don't forgive them. They discipline because they love them.

 

2. Secondly, your daughter seems to have the idea that God came to save people that aren't that bad, you know good people who make a mistake here or there. But the Bible says there are no good people. We are all "bad sinners" who deserve God's judgement.

 

This isn't just religious talk, it's logical. The thing that separates "good people" from the murderers is simply upbringing and biology. For example, let's take a boy who is beat and screamed at, burned with cigerettes and never taught self-control. He grows up, one day loses his temper and kills someone. His neighbor, on the other hand, who was raised in a stable home, loses his temper, says angry, mean things and slams the door. Big difference? Not really. They are both being angry and hateful. Their heart is doing the same thing, they want to hurt that person. But one man is in the habit of self-control because of how he was raised. He was taught the vocabulary to express himself. God looks at them as having the same sin- anger and hate , He always looks at the heart. This is why God tells us not to judge as if we are better than others.

 

The same with Eve, she wasn't being judged for picking the fruit, but for calling the God, who had been so kind to her, a big liar. And of course, for being a thief. So, if my daughter asked, I guess I'd remind her that we would all be thieves and murderers if we were in different circumstances. That God says that if we gossip or are mean to people, God considers that murder. If we covet, God considers that theft. But if we see how ugly our hearts are without God, and our heart breaks because of it. God will put it back together and make it new and loving. And if he has done that to us we will want to go tell the rapist and murderers about it, because they are just like us and we want them to be made new too. God is a God of resurrection; he takes ugly, dead things and makes them beautiful, and then lets them into heaven.

Then there are the people who think they are already good, who refuse to be changed, and they are the ones who are not allowed back into the garden, into heaven.

Edited by BrandieRose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh. My kids have free will, and to train them to use their will well, I do give them with consequences when they use it poorly. They are free to hit their sibling when they're mad or to not hit them and perhaps to pray for them instead. They can choose what they will. But if they choose to hit, there is a consequence, and that consequence will hopefully create in them the desire to not hit in anger in the future, because this is the way of love and we are here to love. I don't see the dilemma here.

 

Same as above. Curiosity can be a wonderful thing! But it can also be something that drags a person down and so one has to learn to use curiosity well.

 

Here's the thing that troubles me a bit about this reasoning: Didn't God put the tree of knowledge there? Why put it there only to instruct Adam and Eve not to use it? Doesn't that really just amount to setting up your children for failure? Is it a test?

 

That question has bothered me ever since I was a kid. It just doesn't seem like a very loving way to parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your daughter seems to have two misconceptions:

 

1. First, as others have said, God never said He didn't forgive Eve. Parents discipline their children all the time, doesn't mean they don't forgive them. They discipline because they love them.

 

2. Secondly, your daughter seems to have the idea that God came to save people that aren't that bad, you know good people who make a mistake here or there. But the Bible says there are no good people. We are all "bad sinners" who deserve God's judgement.

 

This isn't just religious talk, it's logical. The thing that separates "good people" from the murderers is simply upbringing and biology. For example, let's take a boy who is beat and screamed at, burned with cigerettes and never taught self-control. He grows up, one day loses his temper and kills someone. His neighbor, on the other hand, who was raised in a stable home, loses his temper, says angry, mean things and slams the door. Big difference? Not really. They are both being angry and hateful. Their heart is doing the same thing, they want to hurt that person. But one man is in the habit of self-control because of how he was raised. He was taught the vocabulary to express himself. God looks at them as having the same sin- anger and hate , He always looks at the heart. This is why God tells us not to judge as if we are better than others.

 

The same with Eve, she wasn't being judged for picking the fruit, but for calling the God, who had been so kind to her, a big liar. And of course, for being a thief. So, if my daughter asked, I guess I'd remind her that we would all be thieves and murderers if we were in different circumstances. That God says that if we gossip or are mean to people, God considers that murder. If we covet, God considers that theft. But if we see how ugly our hearts are without God, and our heart breaks because of it. God will put it back together and make it new and loving. And if he has done that to us we will want to go tell the rapist and murderers about it, because they are just like us and we want them to be made new too. God is a God of resurrection; he takes ugly, dead things and makes them beautiful, and then lets them into heaven.

Then there are the people who think they are already good, who refuse to be changed, and they are the ones who are not allowed back into the garden, into heaven.

 

I know your heart is in the right place and that you wrote this with love.

 

But it makes me terribly sad.

 

And it would not have helped me as a questioning 15 year old; it doesn't help me now going on 50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing that troubles me a bit about this reasoning: Didn't God put the tree of knowledge there? Why put it there only to instruct Adam and Eve not to use it? Doesn't that really just amount to setting up your children for failure? Is it a test?

 

That question has bothered me ever since I was a kid. It just doesn't seem like a very loving way to parent.

 

Exactly. Life creates enough challenges that (could) lead to character building. To *manufacture* them, at any developmental stage, and then to punish for it is bizarre and cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow brandy. That's not at all what I believe and sure not what I'm teaching my kids. I'm betting you are not RC. There was so little logic in that it makes me wish I could give you some Thomas Aquinas books.

 

Here's the thing that troubles me a bit about this reasoning: Didn't God put the tree of knowledge there? Why put it there only to instruct Adam and Eve not to use it? Doesn't that really just amount to setting up your children for failure? Is it a test?

 

That question has bothered me ever since I was a kid. It just doesn't seem like a very loving way to parent.

 

Exactly. Life creates enough challenges that (could) lead to character building. To *manufacture* them, at any developmental stage, and then to punish for it is bizarre and cruel.

 

:001_huh:

 

That is some seriously not my style parenting going in those perspectives.

 

I bought a house with a stove, oven, electrical outlets... OMH I have a whole drawer of knives. Stairs with a rail that overlooks the downstairs living area. I have trees that are dangerous to climb too. Some wild berries that would make them sick to eat.

 

Are you actually suggesting that I am bizzare, cruel, and setting them up to expect them not to mess with those things because I told them it is dangerous/unhealthy/unwise and to punish them or they suffer the natural consequence if they do it anyways? Or are you suggesting I don't really care about them if I have these things in their environment?:001_huh:

 

Either way.... I think that's rather...well not my view of parental love or a parenting philosophy I desire to embrace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing that troubles me a bit about this reasoning: Didn't God put the tree of knowledge there? Why put it there only to instruct Adam and Eve not to use it? Doesn't that really just amount to setting up your children for failure? Is it a test?

 

That question has bothered me ever since I was a kid. It just doesn't seem like a very loving way to parent.

 

I think you need to ask what the tree of knowledge actually is meant to represent, and what its purpose is in the garden.

 

Remember that Adam and Eve were created with free will. They had a close relationship with God, they knew what the rules were and they knew God loved them and was not arbitrary. It seems they didn't always understand the rules, but they were not in the position we are in now where we are often are not quite sure what is right or we feel unloved by God.

 

Free will means that they were not like animals who are bound by their nature - they do what is at some level instinctual and don't have moral doubts. ADam and eve had moral sense, they knew what was right, and they were able to do something that they knew was wrong.

 

So what would free will be without the possibility of making a choice? Up until the fruit incident, they exercised their free will by obeying God. Then they chose not to. If there was no choice to be made, in what way can we say they had free will?

 

The tree then, is not something that God put there to cause them trouble. It is part of the gift of free will, the ability to choose something other than the good and God, a gift of self-actualization and indeed the gift of mature love. The tree is a necessary corollary to all of these things, it represents making a particular sort of choice, or the possibility of making a choice at all.

 

Sometimes it can help to hear stories from really familiar sources like the Bible in a different way - it can make things that seem staid and lifeless fresh. C.S. Lewis has a novel where he does a very interesting reworking of the story of the Fall that addresses your question quite specifically. It isn't really an allegory because it is set up as a somewhat different situation, but it is a parallel situation. In that story the male and female characters are told not to go to a particular bit of land which is fixed, they are supposed to stay only on floating islands. They don't know the reason for that. Much of the story consists of one character trying to convince her it is a silly rule and another that it isn't. And although there does turn out to be a reason for the rule which comes to fruition of a sort, that isn't in a way the most important part of the story - choosing to follow the rule is an act of faith and love for her, and involves her coming to a kind of self-awareness she didn't have before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow brandy. That's not at all what I believe and sure not what I'm teaching my kids. I'm betting you are not RC. There was so little logic in that it makes me wish I could give you some Thomas Aquinas books.

 

 

 

 

 

:001_huh:

 

That is some seriously not my style parenting going in those perspectives.

 

I bought a house with a stove, oven, electrical outlets... OMH I have a whole drawer of knives. Stairs with a rail that overlooks the downstairs living area. I have trees that are dangerous to climb too. Some wild berries that would make them sick to eat.

 

Are you actually suggesting that I am bizzare, cruel, and setting them up to expect them not to mess with those things because I told them it is dangerous/unhealthy/unwise and to punish them or they suffer the natural consequence if they do it anyways? Or are you suggesting I don't really care about them if I have these things in their environment?:001_huh:

 

Either way.... I think that's rather...well not my view of parental love or a parenting philosophy I desire to embrace.

 

Actually, that is my point. Life, such as electrical outlets, knives, etc happens in a natural, organic way. To *create* an object lesson is cruel.

 

So, no, I am not suggesting either not having a house full of useful objects or to redirect them from interacting with things they are too young to handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is my point. Life, such as electrical outlets, knives, etc happens in a natural, organic way. To *create* an object lesson is cruel.

 

So, no, I am not suggesting either not having a house full of useful objects or to redirect them from interacting with things they are too young to handle.

 

Do you think God created it to somehow cause them trouble? The text doesn't imply that in any way, even if you insist on a literalist reading. It is dangerous, he doesn't say why or what its purpose is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think God created it to somehow cause them trouble? The text doesn't imply that in any way, even if you insist on a literalist reading. It is dangerous, he doesn't say why or what its purpose is.

 

I agree. When I read that section of the bible, it does not seem in any way whatsoever as though God was plotting against thflyweight fallse expectations. In fact, it reads very much the opposite to me. As though He is terribly heartbroken by their lack of trust in His counsel. I don't see Him setting them up for an object lesson. Anymore than my leaving a wild bush that happens to have poisonous berries on it is some object lesson. It's just a bush.

Edited by Martha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. When I read that section of the bible, it does not seem in any way whatsoever as though God was plotting against them wi false expectations. In fact, it reads very much the opposite to me. As though He is terribly heartbroken by their lack of trust in His counsel.

 

Ok, to me it seems stupid and contrived and petty.

 

But I hope you read my clarification about babies and normal living realities, because what you thought I was saying was actually the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, to me it seems stupid and contrived and petty.

 

But I hope you read my clarification about babies and normal living realities, because what you thought I was saying was actually the opposite.

 

It's a story. We never know what the tree was for, it isn't really important, it may well not have had anything to do with a tree. It represents making a free moral choice against the good that they knew. The tree was a possibility or a potentiality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is my point. Life, such as electrical outlets, knives, etc happens in a natural, organic way. To *create* an object lesson is cruel.

 

So, no, I am not suggesting either not having a house full of useful objects or to redirect them from interacting with things they are too young to handle.

 

 

Ok, to me it seems stupid and contrived and petty.

 

But I hope you read my clarification about babies and normal living realities, because what you thought I was saying was actually the opposite.

 

No, I don't think it was? You are saying God shouldn't have planted the tree and if He did, then He shouldn't have gotten upset if they messed with it even tho he told them, not to - yes?

 

Let's say I plant a beautiful garden in the back of my property. (let's pretend it isn't a suburban fenced lot :) ) It's 99% completely safe except for this one plant with really amazing looking fruit, which I planted because I found it useful for whatever reason known to me. So my grown son asks if he can pitch a tent with his wife. I say sure, but hey, don't mess with that plant over there. It'll make you inner circle of hell sick, so leave it alone - comprehend? Sure ma. No problem, says son who hasn't given me any problems before so I trust him not to do it.

 

But the little twerp does!!!! Holy moly. There were strawberries and watermellon and grapes and he just had to eat that ONE?! I go out the next morning all cheerful like thinking to invite them in for coffee and they are sprawled out nakid, half out of their head, ashamed, embarrassed, muttering about how he didn't know and I shouldn't have let him pitch a tent and she made him do it, and wth did I plant that plant anyways?!

 

And they have the nerve to be mad at me for kicking their bums off my property and for them being sick?! Seriously?!

 

All somewhat tongue in cheek of course. But mostly when I read the bible, I feel more bad for God than people. Especially since I became a mother of teens. :tongue_smilie:

Edited by Martha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eastern Orthodox theology says that the Trees of Life and Knowledge were for the people to eat, but not at that time, not yet, because they were not ready. The people were newly made, just like children. I'm sorry but I can not recall where this reference comes from (which fathers of the church wrote about this theology) but it is there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eastern Orthodox theology says that the Trees of Life and Knowledge were for the people to eat, but not at that time, not yet, because they were not ready. The people were newly made, just like children. I'm sorry but I can not recall where this reference comes from (which fathers of the church wrote about this theology) but it is there.

 

This is what I've been pondering, too. God didn't say they'd never eat of it, nor what the purpose was going to eventually be. The Bible certainly doesn't say He placed it there for no other reason but to challenge and taunt them. :confused:

 

God has a reason for putting it there, and knowing God, there was something good coming for them. But A&E didn't have patience, couldn't wait, and chose to do their own thing. That changed everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Mrs. A said, an icon isn't really an artist's rendition. It is a bit more like a doctrinal idea or text presented visually. And that presentation is tightly controlled, just as the way Scripture is presented is controlled - perhaps even more so in some ways as there is no issue with translation.

 

In this case it showing the teaching that Christ descended to the dead to preach to them after the Crucifixion, and it shows him holding Adam and Eve by the wrists (as they have no power of themselves to help themselves) to bring them out of Hell. Not just those two either but many others. You see the broken doors of Hell under his feet, and you see that those individuals in whom mankind fell have themselves been redeemed, which has implications for all of us.

 

I learn something new every day... thanks :001_smile:

I still don't understand why they would be in hell in the first place.... but I'm not christian, so there are lots of things I just don't understand. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts ladies :001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learn something new every day... thanks :001_smile:

I still don't understand why they would be in hell in the first place.... but I'm not christian, so there are lots of things I just don't understand. I've enjoyed reading your thoughts ladies :001_smile:

I believe that all those who died before Christ came who believed in God went to what some call "Abraham's Bosom", which is a holding place of sorts but is not actually Hell. When Jesus died he went there, preached to them (1 Peter 3:19) and gathered all those who were His.

 

This understanding comes from Luke 16:19-31

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought a house with a stove, oven, electrical outlets... OMH I have a whole drawer of knives. Stairs with a rail that overlooks the downstairs living area. I have trees that are dangerous to climb too. Some wild berries that would make them sick to eat.

 

Are you actually suggesting that I am bizzare, cruel, and setting them up to expect them not to mess with those things because I told them it is dangerous/unhealthy/unwise and to punish them or they suffer the natural consequence if they do it anyways? Or are you suggesting I don't really care about them if I have these things in their environment?

 

Well, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming you are not an omnipotent being who claimed to have created a paradise? I assume that you are a plain old human who needs those knives and stairs and electrical outlets for practical purposes?

 

I would also assume that you would not bring into being in your environment something beautiful and appealing that you knew perfectly well (being omniscient, too) would be a temptation for your children specifically for the purpose of telling them not to touch it so you could punish them if they did?

 

It's not about "having" something potentially dangerous, but about putting it there as a test, then punishing someone for failing. (To me, at least.)

 

Think of it like an "attractive nuisance." It's a legal doctrine that says a landowner can be held liable if a child is injured on his or her property, even if the kid is there without permission, if the landowner has something that he or she should know will attract kids and doesn't take reasonable precautions to prevent kids from getting hurt. As far as I can see, that tree was the ultimate in attractive nuisances and was put there on purpose.

 

Please understand, I'm not one of those (as my daughter calls them) "angry athiests." I do have faith, just not in the god being discussed here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I've been pondering, too. God didn't say they'd never eat of it, nor what the purpose was going to eventually be. The Bible certainly doesn't say He placed it there for no other reason but to challenge and taunt them. :confused:

 

God has a reason for putting it there, and knowing God, there was something good coming for them. But A&E didn't have patience, couldn't wait, and chose to do their own thing. That changed everything.

 

That's interesting - that is pretty much the outcome in the C.S. Lewis novel I mentioned - the people do get to go to the forbidden place, but it wasn't appropriate for them to go there first. I imagine he probably got that interpretation from the same source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that is my point. Life, such as electrical outlets, knives, etc happens in a natural, organic way. To *create* an object lesson is cruel.

 

So, no, I am not suggesting either not having a house full of useful objects or to redirect them from interacting with things they are too young to handle.

 

heh. Just got a chuckle out of the idea of knives and electrical outlets being "natural" and "organic," whereas the TREE was this unnatural enticement to sin.

 

yeah I know it's all symbolic, but, it just gave me a vision of all these electrical outlets sprouting in the woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also assume that you would not bring into being in your environment something beautiful and appealing that you knew perfectly well (being omniscient, too) would be a temptation for your children specifically for the purpose of telling them not to touch it so you could punish them if they did?

 

It's not about "having" something potentially dangerous, but about putting it there as a test, then punishing someone for failing. (To me, at least.)

 

But there is no reason to presume that was the case?

 

Think of it like an "attractive nuisance." It's a legal doctrine that says a landowner can be held liable if a child is injured on his or her property, even if the kid is there without permission, if the landowner has something that he or she should know will attract kids and doesn't take reasonable precautions to prevent kids from getting hurt. As far as I can see, that tree was the ultimate in attractive nuisances and was put there on purpose.

 

I think that is a stupid law. :/

And we are not talking children.

 

 

Question: if Adam and eve were given free will and expected to obey God, what would be the point if there were no rules? If nothing were off limits?

 

And what on earth could be patriarchal about their story? :blink:

 

I second those questions.

 

It's not really freedom if one lives in a bubble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh. Just got a chuckle out of the idea of knives and electrical outlets being "natural" and "organic," whereas the TREE was this unnatural enticement to sin.

 

yeah I know it's all symbolic, but, it just gave me a vision of all these electrical outlets sprouting in the woods.

 

I knew a camping area that had this feature. It was nicknamed Electric Pines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heh. Just got a chuckle out of the idea of knives and electrical outlets being "natural" and "organic," whereas the TREE was this unnatural enticement to sin.

 

yeah I know it's all symbolic, but, it just gave me a vision of all these electrical outlets sprouting in the woods.

 

This has nothing to do with natural or unnatural. It was about what is normal to expect in an environment of any kind. All environments that aren't actually prisons, and even those sometimes, are going to have things that are dangerous. But usually we don't think that is unloving. We also don't usually suggest that people have free will and then claim that having an environment where people can actually use their free will in ways we don't like is petty or cruel. That POV is very confusing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...