Did God think before creating Sinners?

piffi

Nixed Price Rack
Registered Senior Member
If after God created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden they had the capacity to not resist the tempation....would the outcome of the situation been different given different circumstances?

What I mean is, in simple terms, what is the logic to being punished for original sin if it is part of human nature....if God did not want us to sin, why would he have created humans so succeptible to it?
 
Two answers and you can pick which ever you want:

a) God has limited power--can't make a perfect human.

b) God is evil--need some new toys to fool around, mainly to pass time.
 
If after God created Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden they had the capacity to not resist the tempation....would the outcome of the situation been different given different circumstances?
If Adam and Eve <i>didn't</i> have the capacity to resist temptation, why would the serpent have to lie to Eve only in order to get them to eat the fruit. If they didn't have the capacity to resist temptation, then all the serpent would have to say is, "Look at the pretty fruit, you want to eat it, don't you?" And these poor, hapless people who weren't able to resist temptation would go and eat it.
if God did not want us to sin, why would he have created humans so succeptible to it?
He didn't. An external being had to insert himself and tweak the picture for himself in order to get people to sin originally. Without the serpent, we're still in the garden basking away in paradise.
 
True, Dan, you couldn't have said it any more clearly

If Adam and Eve didn't have the capacity to resist temptation, why would the serpent have to lie to Eve only in order to get them to eat the fruit.
Establish that the serpent lied. This myth is one of the biggest factors continuing the misogyny that starts in Genesis, continues in Timothy, and lives still in the modern day.

As I read it, the only one who lied in Genesis is God, but I understand that we see things differently, since I'm expected to accept the Bible as benevolent and correct on all counts before I read it; such is the nature of faith. :rolleyes:
An external being had to insert himself and tweak the picture for himself in order to get people to sin originally. Without the serpent, we're still in the garden basking away in paradise.
Is this because God is just afraid to take responsibility for His will? As we see in Job, Satan continues to be a holy servant of God, directly accountable; it would seem that, since nothing happens without God's will, and with Satan accounting directly to God, we must either accept that the serpent was executing God's will, or else establish just who the character of the Serpent is.

So ... God couldn't make His will come about without the aid and participation of another being?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Tiassa,

But wait, if God created everything then he is also responsible for the serpent and if nothing happens without God’s knowledge and direction then he knew that the serpent was going to do the tempting. He must have also known that he had not sufficiently educated Adam and Eve in the problems of temptation, since they would have never encountered it before.

It all means that Adam and Eve had not been properly equipped to deal with such a situation and cannot be held responsible for the repercussions. All of which had to have been manipulated by an all knowing and all seeing God.

Cris
 
Cris ... Well, now ...

I believe you've got it exactly; I'm not about to believe, however, that you weren't aware of it before. But thank you for stating so clearly what I have somehow failed to say.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Establish that the serpent lied. This myth is one of the biggest factors continuing the misogyny that starts in Genesis, continues in Timothy, and lives still in the modern day.
You either don't read, or choose to ignore my posts on these subjects in other threads. To summarize, the "you will surely die" of Genesis 3 is more literally translated, "in dying you shall die", which repetition shows a never-ending death at the root of Old Testament metaphors of hell. Until you are certain about hell, you cannot establish that God lied. Secondly, the Timothy verse is positive towards women, because unlike many pagan religions, it holds men responsible for original sin, and not women.
But wait, if God created everything then he is also responsible for the serpent and if nothing happens without God’s knowledge and direction then he knew that the serpent was going to do the tempting. He must have also known that he had not sufficiently educated Adam and Eve in the problems of temptation, since they would have never encountered it before.
God did not control Adam and Eve's actions. In principle Adam at least should have been able to recongize that the fruit Eve gave to him was what God said not to eat, and therefore would not have eaten it. However, Adam chose not only to eat the fruit, but blame the woman later--which would be the first act of mysogyny. This act was what got us thrown out of Eden, if Adam had owned up to it, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
 
Dan,

God did not control Adam and Eve's actions.
Yes I accept that.

In principle Adam at least should have been able to recongize that the fruit Eve gave to him was what God said not to eat, and therefore would not have eaten it. However, Adam chose not only to eat the fruit, but blame the woman later--which would be the first act of mysogyny. This act was what got us thrown out of Eden, if Adam had owned up to it, we wouldn't have been in this mess. [/B]
Ok but did they fully understand the penalties that would result. I don’t think they had been properly instructed in the implications of their actions since there was no precedent. And that is my point.

God simply did not teach them enough, after all they were his creation and he would have been fully aware of their limitations and strengths. If they did the wrong thing then he is fully at fault.

Cris
 
I don’t think they had been properly instructed in the implications of their actions since there was no precedent.
The language of Genesis is precise about the consequences of their actions. But we must also note that Genesis has very compact language, and presumably God would have had a more lenghty conversation with Adam than what was recorded for us to read.
God simply did not teach them enough, after all they were his creation and he would have been fully aware of their limitations and strengths.
Let's stop the comment right here. What conclusion you draw from this depends upon your assumptions about who God is. If God is a bad or mean god, then He would stack the deck against Adam and Eve--Who He spent so much time creating--so that He could watch them be destroyed. If, however, God is a good god, He would have stacked the deck in favor of Adam and Eve, and given only the <i>slightest</i> chance that they could choose to eat the fruit--leaving the door just barely open so that they still had the freedom to say no to God. The fact that it happened is not the issue, but the nature of God. Many reasonable people have told me that had they been in Adam or Eve's place, they would not have eaten the fruit. That is at least some evidence that humanity had the ability to withstand the temptation.
 
ahh Dan

you wrote:
"Many reasonable people have told me that had they been in Adam or Eve's place, they would not have eaten the fruit. That is at least some evidence that humanity had the ability to withstand the temptation"


hinde sight is always 20-20. You can't reasonably apply the logic of what people understand today..Adam and Eve are supposed to be the FIRST people and everyday was a new experience, including deceiving God...I would say a good and reasonable God would have been more forgiving of a creation that didn't know any better. You know yourself what a child is like...you can tell them one thing untill your tounge swells and falls out...but until they learn from experience the message doesn't sink in...and the parents reaction to this is the criteria by which a parent can be judged...God failed.
 
Obvious disgreements ....

Until you are certain about hell, you cannot establish that God lied.
Until I am certain about Hell? Well, it's tough to assess the efficacy of a religion that hasn't settled such a vital question for itself. What I could determine from, say, your vision of Hell would have different implications in my assessment of Christian faith than, say, Tony1, or Deadwood, or anyone else. It isn't necesarily the full diversity of opinions that bothers me about how Chrisitans perceive the One Way to the Father. What is more disturbing is how the most visible effects of that diversity manifest it as a negative value on society. Part of what this tells me is that Christians need to put their heads together and decide what faith means and what it describes. Obviously, the efforts of the Catholics failed miserably; the diversity of what has come since justifies that assessment. But what about that produce, and the intense divisiveness it creates in pursuit of a godly society? If, perhaps, irresponsible religion weren't the primary trend of Christianity in the culture nearest me, I would perceive the relation of the faithful to the precepts in a much more positive light. But I just don't see it.
Secondly, the Timothy verse is positive towards women, because unlike many pagan religions, it holds men responsible for original sin, and not women.
I disagree:
11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
(1 Timothy 2.11-15)
As I read it, Adam was not deceived by the Serpent, but Eve was, and thus transgressed. Barefoot and pregnant, sir ... this is where that stupid idea comes from. I think it would be fair to say that you're reading the verse against the grain of history. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but what is it that makes people advocating Christianity so determinated to view Christianity as if their own interpretation was the only one applicable? And you can't turn that one back onto me, because if one thing tells me that my interpretation is either right or wrong (big help there, eh?) is that nobody seems to give it any credibility. No amount of consensus can make an interpretation right, unless everyone agrees. However, a certain amount of understanding would tell me I'm actually on the wrong track. A certain type of agreement would tell me that I'm not necessarily perceiving it wrong. But nothing will tell me I have it right until what I say is reflected in society and proving itself beneficial to the human race in practice. And, frankly, there are better ways to have that effect than Christianity. And most of 'em are honest, to boot, so there's a plus Christianity has never possessed in my experience.
God did not control Adam and Eve's actions. In principle Adam at least should have been able to recongize that the fruit Eve gave to him was what God said not to eat, and therefore would not have eaten it. However, Adam chose not only to eat the fruit, but blame the woman later--which would be the first act of mysogyny. This act was what got us thrown out of Eden, if Adam had owned up to it, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
And yadda and yadda and ... oh, sorry. Look, what you're ignoring is that God knew that this was the way things would occur and still chose to go through with it.

Consider this: if you think a movie is out of focus but everyone else in the theater thinks it's just fine, are you still so confident in your perception? I understand the explanations you've given of Genesis, but this is not how God's message has communicated itself to the majority of the faithful. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to make such explanations. Thus, while you think you understand the standard, you are still the minority saying it's out of focus.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
What's so hard about understand how Satan lied by just reading the plain english translation? It sounds really smart to use the original Hebrew but really...it's not necessary.

Understanding hell also has nothing to do with this topic.

God said "eat the fruit and you will die." He didn't say when. They died instantly spiritually and later physically. In order to understand the "and you shall be like God" portion (the implied lie which people still don't get), you don't have to but it helps, you go to Isaiah and see why Satan was thrown out of heaven.

If you can't understand why Satan was thrown out then you really will never understand

a) how Satan lied (the actual temptation) to Adam and Eve which the Mormon church currently uses. One word...Godhood: The being equal with God or desiring more than God offers.

b) And that Envy was the first sin. Which in turn points out that God was the "cause" of Satan's fall.

Which gets into law both temperal and eternal. If you can't understand Genesis I think it's quite out of your league.

As for the "two" options someone offered...way to think it through. Define all powerfull. Think about it. The only way to remove sin is to either

a) remove the law - see the Gospel
b) deny all things created a will - turn them into plants..
c) remove all forms of temptation - God would have to cease to exist

God can do anything. Because he made a choice doesn't make him less powerful.

Ben
 
God said that they would "die" in the day they ate of the fruit:

1) They began the physical process of aging and decaying (dying) when they ate the fruit.

2) From that day on, they had the absolute certainty that they would eventually die.

3) From the moment they ate and on, they were physically seperated from God, and hence spiritually "dead."

4) This one is something I've recently read (I think tony first posted it) but it certainly makes sense in light of a hermeneutical system (hermeneutics - the study of how to interpret Scripture, i.e. literal, allegorical, etc...) Anyway, since God is so merciful (mercy = offering something that is undeserved) and not willing "that any should perish", He has patience, in that "a day is as 1,000 years." All the pre-flood lifespans (900+ years) and everyone since then have all been less than then a thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that scripture interprets scripture, because the context (in 1st or 2nd Peter) is about God delaying His judgement as long as possible.

As to the first question, why God didn't give Adam and Eve the ability to resist temptaion, that would kindof interfere with free-will.

~Caleb
 
Last edited:
How do you understand that God's patience applied literaly to pre flood when most of those that lived back then lived no where close to 1000 years? Have you actually read the geneology found in Genesis? All the ages are listed. It may have been 1000 years from Adam eating the fruit to the flood (Methusala died right when the flood started or in it, we don't know) but it has nothing to do with the age of the people living back then.

God could not force Adam and Eve to not eat the fruit not because it would interfer with free will (which still doesn't exist) but because it wouldn't remove the intention to sin against God. God looks at the heart not the actions. The only "free will" we have is the intentions of our heart. Satan was thrown out not for becomming greater than God, but for desiring to be greater than God.

If not the fruit Adam and Eve would have found something to covet.

How do you understand free will and where are the scriptures that support that understanding?

Ben
 
I was thinking of free-will being in the mind or heart. What you call "intentions of our heart" is what I was calling free will, and your terms may actually be slightly better -- it raises the distinction between intents and actions. For more depth, check my confusing and poorly attempted post on the Predestination thred.

~Caleb
 
Extra-biblical and somewhere out there ....

Refutations:
God said that they would "die" in the day they ate of the fruit:

1) They began the physical process of aging and decaying (dying) when they ate the fruit.
So when God spoke in Genesis 3.22, he was observing that mankind had become like Him, but only needed to reach out and take of the tree of life in order to live forever, as originally designed but forfeit by knowledge?
Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." The LORD God therefore banished him from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Genesis 3.22-23)
The word therefore, of course, meaning
1 a : for that reason : CONSEQUENTLY b : because of that c : on that ground
2 : to that end
* http://www.m-w.com

For that reason, then ... that reason being that mankind might stretch out its hand and eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. Where we get the idea that Adam and Eve should live forever can only be from the Lord's words that Eve should surely die if she ate from the tree of life. I do not see it stated forthrightly in the Bible that humankind should live forever before partaking of the Tree of Knowledge; it is merely extrapolation that says so. I can only conclude that your first point is inaccurate, relying on extrabiblical ideas in order to justify it.
2) From that day on, they had the absolute certainty that they would eventually die.
And I, too, had to be taught what death was. I can still remember not understanding "forever" and "death", and believing that I would "live forever" before I knew what that idea meant. From the day I learned about death, I have had an absolute certainty that I will eventually die. One learns to live with it.

But I'm unsure why you present this point, other than to make a fairly obscure observation regarding the nature of knowledge over innocence.
3) From the moment they ate and on, they were physically seperated from God, and hence spiritually "dead."
Ah, yes ... context and metaphor. First, this effect can only come about because God wills it; it seems that perfect knowledge had a little bit to learn about the nature of the compassion that makes it so famous in the Jesus-incarnation. Secondly, it seems you're employing an extra-biblical interpretation here: God said that they would surely die, not that they would surely be separated from Him.
4) This one is something I've recently read (I think tony first posted it) but it certainly makes sense in light of a hermeneutical system (hermeneutics - the study of how to interpret Scripture, i.e. literal, allegorical, etc...) Anyway, since God is so merciful (mercy = offering something that is undeserved) and not willing "that any should perish", He has patience, in that "a day is as 1,000 years." All the pre-flood lifespans (900+ years) and everyone since then have all been less than then a thousand years. This is consistent with the idea that scripture interprets scripture, because the context (in 1st or 2nd Peter is about God delaying His judgement as long as possible.
So some guy says that God wants to delay his judgement as long as possible and it justifies the other writings that will be thrown mish-mash together? Of course it justifies; that's why it's written that way. :rolleyes:
As to the first question, why God didn't give Adam and Eve the ability to resist temptaion, that would kindof interfere with free-will.
Umm ... ok. Whatever you say. :rolleyes:

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Originally posted by KalvinB
As for the "two" options someone offered...way to think it through. Define all powerfull. Think about it. The only way to remove sin is to either
a) remove the law - see the Gospel
b) deny all things created a will - turn them into plants..
c) remove all forms of temptation - God would have to cease to exist

Mind if I add two more options?

d) stop procreation - no human no sin
e) nuclear war - we wipe ourselves off Earth, clean
 
Mind if I add two more options?

d) stop procreation - no human no sin
e) nuclear war - we wipe ourselves off Earth, clean
Funny, I tend to see militant environmentalists arguing for d... I found a site that advocated for the voluntary extinction of humanity, I think it was out of concern for the environment.
 
Back
Top