stretched said:
Some input from God would have improved the situation. See the below modern day analogy.
I have a feeling this analogy is going to set out to prove just that - that "some input from God would have improved the situation" - and not be faithful to the Genesis 3 account.
...Laughlin concludes that in Genesis 3: "We call this God 'just' and 'righteous' for putting temptation close at hand and punishing people who, in their naïve and childlike innocence, couldn't have known any better than to do a deed that any deity (or human) with common sense could have foreseen and prevented."
As I suspected. Laughlin has constructed a story that contradicts the sprit of Genesis 3, and thus his conclusion pertains to his "parable", and not to Genesis 3.
In the first place, it depends on unwarranted deductions from Genesis - for instance that Adam and Eve had the moral aptitude of 3-year olds. This is often taken for granted when people assume they represent the "childhood of humanity", or the "infancy of faith". But it's an assumption. Genesis portrays them as intelligent adults: walking with God, naming animals, tending the garden, and conversing with the serpent.
And God would not have held them accountable if they weren't accountable. Compare Isaiah 7:16:
But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
With the warning God gave them, which they clearly understood, Adam and Eve had the necessary information to avoid the kind of temptation they were faced with in the garden.
I could use Laughlin's story against him as well: he appeals to the power of common sense, as if different variables would satisfy common sense better than Genesis. But consider this: the whole garden was grown around the "tree in the middle" - it suggests that the garden and the tree was inseparable. It
had to be there. So it wasn't some odd cookie jar placed within child's reach. Another fact: Adam was created outside Eden. He was only placed in Eden when both were completed and ready. Third: "Eden" means "delicate, delightful place of pleasure", and it's significant that divine knowledge and eternal life is inextricably connected with it (see Rev. 22:2). This wasn't a cookie jar, it was a cookie
factory, and Adam and Eve were the chiefs in charge of it. The tree, however, was God's territory alone - His stake in their lives there, and in the garden He gave them. Of course it's desireable -
if you wished to take over God's share. This wasn't mere curiosity, it was a calculated act of disobedience by people who knew better. Common sense would have dictated that they listen to the owner of the garden and not to its inhabitants.
People like to say in defense, "if you tell someone not to do something, it's the surest way of making them want to". If people really believed this justified anything, our criminal justice system would have looked a lot different.
A moments pleasure and a lifetimes regret. The punishment seems a bit harsh given their limitations don’t you think? Its not like they were given a chance to learn from their mistake. And neither were the whole shebang of generations to follow.
Trust takes a second to break, and more than a lifetime to build. Why should it be different in our relationship with God? It meant that God could not trust them to refrain from seeking eternal life (or so-called wisdom) apart from Him, and He had to expel them from paradise. But to think that Adam lived in perpetual misery is also unwarranted. If we can enjoy life outside paradise, so could he. And God certainly didn't abandon them, just like He doesn't abandon us when we sin. But consequences don't disappear because we don't like them. If sin had no consequences, maybe everyone could have been happy, enjoying paradise with God looking the other direction. Yet it seems people have tried this route, and could not even keep the gardens
outside of Eden intact.
Yep. I agree with you, that much is clear. No, could be NO. But human nature is curious, should we totally deny that part of our nature? Why were we created in that way? It is not about not wanting to understand, its about not being able to understand. Do you think the analogy above is totally unreasonable?
When it's in challenge to God's sovereignity? Yes, then of course we should deny it. Temptation only exists if we think something more desirable than what God would let us have. But it would be fallacious to think all curiosity leads inevitably to disobedience. If the desire to understand is practiced with respect for God, it will lead to greater things than the devil's empty promises. (Didn't he tempt Jesus with immediate gratification as well?). But this is what the Bible says:
Proverbs 1:7-10
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
For they shall be an ornament of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck.
My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not.
...
Such is the end of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
it takes away the lives of those who get it.
There's nothing wrong with our desire to reproduce, yet when this desire leads us into another man's territory, shouldn't we suppress it? Yet since the beginning of creation, it became evident there would be no table high enough, or law strict enough to keep "children" away from
that cookie jar. People may choose to totally deny their desires, but it's an artificial solution. You'll find ascetics in all religions, especially those who consider life inherently evil. To this Genesis also has an answer: "...and God said it was good". When isn't it good? When it denies that God is good, that His word is good, and that His warnings are good.
Psalm 119:128 ...and because I consider all your precepts right, I hate every wrong path.
